since conservatism/rightism believes that the government should be limited, isn't anarchism just the most extreme form of right wing politics and not socialism? anarchism is the doctrine that the government should have a place in society whereas socialism believes it should have the biggest role in a society. Maybe I'm wrong though...
In the materialist conception of history formulated by Marx and Engles, stateless communism is the final stage of history, this is "pure" communism, a classless, stateless system based on common ownership and free-access, superabundance and maximum freedom for individuals to develop their own capacities and talents.
Marx said that the state would disolve once it reached communism. Communism is definately not a right wing theory, getting to communism may go through a right wing period but true communism is left
anarchy is individualism not co-operation. it is the idea that as a human i can make my decisions for me and you can for you. in other words complete isolationism, however inviduals can work together in an anarchist fashion without being socialist. Anarchism means freedom as in free from all influences givin if they choose. Anarchists are everyone in a way it is just how far can you allow your life to be controlled before you join a fight.
@wowalinbie wrong! this thinking of yours is individualist/right wing libertarian thought. if you understand this subject properly you will now that anarchism starting with proudhon is bourgeoisie/utopian socialist thought.
@mmantech True enough but there are multiple forms of anarchy and realisticly thinking anarchy is a utopia or that people can reach a utopia is not a valid possibility. where as u said social responsibility (socialist) is true but i still feel that no government and depending on individual responsibility is better. with no intrusion of societies black death of ideas. I still consider myself haveing anarchist ideas just a little bit different.
@wowalinbie How can anarchy be individualism? the idea is based by people for people. The lack of trust and so individualism in most of societies today = the reason why anarchistideas exist. a good idea would be to destroy this monetary system for once. to use media in a good way, to educate children in a good way. to think ecological, to grow on with nature again instead of slowing the process down. to use technology in a good way finally. break the essence instead of every person on the top
In the UK we have capitalist socialism. There is a great big offensive pyramid on Canary Wharf financial centre and the elite bankers run every aspect of the country top-down. The socialism part only accounts for the idea that we should all have our "fair" share of the misery at the bottom.
Anarchism, was created by a friend/critic of Karl Marx who advocated that in order to achieve a true socialist state, the government should be very decentralised and give the proletariat more control over their lives. Anarchism is often misperceived as a bunch of rebels who care about nothing. That's not true. I think Anarchism creates a perfect Marxist socialist state, but no big authoritarian government.
@4500jasWrong! if you understand this subject properly you will now that anarchism(proudhon) is bourgeoisie/utopian socialist thought. anarchist dont like the fundemental acpect to human history and human nature and that is class struggle. some streams of thought like syndacalism may seem to adress this but they(anarchist) seem not to understand that in order to get to the point of no state u need; first the fall of bourgeoisie capitalist dictatorship. second the dictatorship of the proletariot
You see if you read the communist manifesto it says that the people should have common ownership of capital. Anarchism is a form of free non-authoritarian democratic communist government. Communist, but very liberal. Government would be replaced with elected councils. Decisions are democratically made by councils and the people. So basically it's still communist, but without an authoritarian government.
Capitalism is the historic evolution of private property relationship of alienation,exploitation and suffering of humanity in a modality of production for profit in a world market of ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY and manipulation to perpetuate the conditions of exploitation in the interest of the Owning/Ruling elite. Capitalism is the monetary web of deception and suppresssion of humanity for the abstract process of capital accumulation and concentration . A system of dehumanisation and devaluation
In the socialist marxist state the hierarchy would be represented by workers and worker's representative at factory/small community level and the workers have the choice to choose there representatives or change it,so it's not like the today's state. Leninism isn't marxism.
I completely disagree. On the contrary, anarchism represents the ultra right, but without the totalitarian effect. I don't think a political spectrum diagram exists that can represent anarchism. But it certainly isn't a left wing school of thought. It rejects everything the left wing stands for- state control, regulation, equal society.
@ToaJoe Not at all. The left-wing school of Anarcho-Communism has no state regulation, and a true equal society is more free than an unequal society, since all people have the same access to de means of productions and hence the same oportunity to satisfy their needs.
@ToaJoe Thats not what socialism stands for, socialism stands for the workers owning the means of production. and we want that, but without the authoritarian "dictatorship of the prolitariat", "Communist" countries never seem to get past.
I am not anti government or the state per sa, but the centralized bureaucratic state.I support the anarchist ideas of the automobiles local community that is directly democratic, libertarian, and more egalitarian with less hierarchy. The workers would own/control the means of production and property rights would be based on actual occupancy and use. Worker cooperatives, local assemblies, local communities in a sense are government in that they are a system to govern but its from the people.
Anarchy is not at all the same as Socialism. Anarchy = no Government. Socialism = "omnipotent", omnipresent government. Communism = a promise of a heaven on earth that is supposed to come after socialism, but is in fact only a a false promise to lure people and can not be put in practice using Marx theory. If Anarchy is gonna work, people need extremely high morals. But Marx labels all standards for morality as obsolete.
BTW: Socialism = equality - but equality does not at all = Freedom.
Socialism doesn't necessarily mean government. Socialism, as Anarcho-Socialists see it, simply means that the people run their own affairs & the means of production is in the hands of the workers rather than being in the hands of a proxy such as the State.
Freedom without equality is impossible. Equality meaning equal Status to most anarchists. Even without a State, you are not free if you are being bossed around by superiors at work 8 hours a day. Only worker managed entities could solve this.
@CapitalistHolocaust: maybe you should look up the definition of Socialism or read Marx, as even Marx would disagree with your definition of Socialism. In Socialism everything is state owned. it's a state-Economy. So how could you have a state economy without a state? Wouldn't that be contradicting itself?
Having freedom and equality simultaneously is equally contradictory. How could you make all people equal without taking away the the freedom of all the people who want to be different?
Forcing people to toil for the needs of the collective is not anarchism. True anarchism recognizes the rights of the individual. Besides, I thought one of the staples of anarchist theory was the non-aggression principle, and socialism is VERY aggressive.
anarchy is right wing and communism, national socialism all that is left wing dont belive me go live in korea or china and see how much the government there likes anarchist.
@ITSHAVOK765: The Anarchist FAQ states their position on the political spectrum to be on the Left and Roderick Long, a market anarchist philosopher considers himself a Leftist.
@ITSHAVOK765 don't worry about the idiots... it seems like all of the commies want to say that Anarchism is the same these days.... I just ignore them.
Capitalism has its issues but the concept of socialism is just laughable and in no way sustainable or ideal for anyone with an ounce of motivation or individuality.
There will always be people better off or worse off than yourself, accept this and get on with it and try to aspire yourself to be better.
Socialism is envy and the equal sharing of misery.
@summ0004 Marxism is as ridiculous an ideology as anarchism. Where Marxism has an advantage is in giving license to stealing. This is why anarchist systems either quickly dissipate and collapse or, like the anarchists of the Spanish Civil War, become hypocritical authoritarians.
Marxism is a pyramid scheme for exploiting capitalist systems. Anarchism is just a joke amongst college students.
@summ0004: Read Kevin Carson's "the Iron Fist behind the Invisible Hand." By the way, Marx himself criticized that "Crude communism" which "is only the culmination of this envy and of this levelling-down proceeding from the preconceived minimum" (Economic and Philosophic Manuscript 1844)
well I am an anarchist and I don't care about all of that bullshit theory crap... I just think the world will get sick of the murder of their nations and choose to get along and not vote...
it is simple and common sense and doesn't require explanations that require 90 mg of adderall to understand and reply to...
the way to shut them down isn't violence... it is to make them subhuman like they do to you... by laughing at them and ignoring them. people will get sick of it someday.
however to talk to such academic types you can tell them in their language: "morality rests upon the notion of personal responsibility. As does anarchy."
They already accept the first bit in their philosophy, so they have to accept the morality of anarchy. *POP* converted lol
I would advise this rather than waiting until it gets so bad etc.
You quoted Kropotkin,that's nice! i hope you are aware that he was propably the most famous Anarchocommunist of all.The word Communism as usually used in the US needs semantic clarification because the understanding of this word is still twisted and that makes it difficult to use in a claryfying way.
Marxism or Statesocialism(the term you have used in your quotes)would have been more appropriate in my oppinion.
ACTUALLY ANARCHISM IS XCOMMUINSM+MORE BUT ITS THE SAME THING.
It should say: Marxism VERSUS Anarchism, Marxists beleives in the idealogical ROAD CALLED SOCIALISM to COMMUINSM ANARCHISTS IN DIRECT-FULL-DEMOCRACY/COMMUNISM, LIKE THE SPANISH REVOLUTION. LEARN UR WORDS FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111
Are they teaching this stupid shit in public schools today or what? What is with you younger people and Socialism? Have you never read history? Do you not understand freedom and free market Capitalism?
@jjrglobal younger people and socialism? Most of the people I know who are "socialist" of any stripe are well into adulthood. And the people who subscribe to the kind of "socialism" you are most likely referring to are mostly baby-boomers who never moved past the New Left.
I understand freedom and free market capitalism. I want the former so I am against the latter.
Nope, public school taught me some pretty conservative bullshit. Took some self-education to come to where I am now.
Anarchists and Capitalists say "Hands off the state". True socialism is a mass movement, where the mass of people take the state out of the hands of the capitalists and puts it in their own hands. True socialism comes from the bottom-up.
Forget Stalinism and the bureaucrats, real socialism is the power of the masses... ... it needs no repressive structures to control the masses as the power is already in the hands of the masses.
The end-point of communism is the end of the state.
We need to take over the state and then capitalists cannot use the state against us.
Anarchism wants to make the leap from state to no-state in one go... but the capitalists will simply re-organise an 'authority' and rebuild every time they are smashed.
Communism provides a path, protects us from counter-revolution and gives the mass of people time to develop towards a 'free' consciousness.
@tellyontellyon fuck that. The state is counter-revolutionary in itself. Its point is to manage capital, to provide mediation and pacification between capital and the proletariat. Look at every revolutionary situation in history, the state has always come down against the masses because THEY CANNOT BE CONTROLLED.
And regardless of whether the pig is wearing a red white and blue patch or just a red one, he will still be my enemy. We are ungovernable.
Are you going to abandon capitalism all by yourself?
Organisation is needed.
A 'bottum up' direct-democratic socialist 'state' has nothing to do with capitalism, it would simply be the organised workers masses. Capitalism would be abandoned not 'managed'.
If the 'state' is trying to control the masses then it is not socialist. A true socialist 'state' is simply the workers organising themselves.
There won't be 'leaders', only workers delegates that can be instantly recalled.
@tellyontellyon I'm perfectly fine with organization, but organization does not imply a State. If I come together with friends, is that a state? What about when I decide to work on a project with people of a like mind?
The modern State is a function of capitalism. They are inseparable, unless they are both destroyed they will simply resurrect the other in a new form.
Again, look at history. Every "socialist state" has betrayed the revolution, even done what the bourgeois weren't willing to do.
Stalin betrayed the revolution in Russia, and had a hand in the failure in Germany which sealed the fate of the Russians. There is nothing inevitable about the degeneration that happened in Russia. 21 Capitalist countries attacking Russia just after the October revolution, and the underdeveloped nature of Russia at the time played a massive part in what happened there.
The same attacks would happen to an anarchist society. We would need organised armies and industry to fight.
@tellyontellyon What, we need to do like Trotsky did when he sent the Red Army to crush the Kronstadt rebellion? Lets not forget that Lenin paved the way for Stalin, the latter simply developed the ideas of the former. The betrayal comes from the recuperation of the revolution by the State, not by some individual who wasn't pure enough to inherit the crown.
We are attacked now, we will be attacked later. A State won't solve that problem for us, it will just increase our problems.
Kronstadt... Trotsky's replies to this can be found online..
You are repeating the same old Capitalist nonsense about Leninism leading to Stalinism... Stalin was of course happy to put out the same propoganda and potray what he did as a development of Leninism.
The totalitarian bureaucratic state of Stalin was not Marxism.
We will just have to agree to disagree on the practicalities of how to overthrow capitalism comrade, the vast libraries of argument can be found online.
@dazza5266 Some people are unable to thwart or comprehend their indoctrination. The whole choice and free will argument is kind of weak because it ignores the environment’s impact upon the individual and the greater community itself. And when you say that "the minority was crucified 2000 years ago " are you referring to the character Jesus ???
@dazza5266 Social mobility isn't the reason why people like capitalism. People like capitalism because they are slaves. It is just like religion. The majority of people in the "my" society are not Christians because of some divine intervention, but because of the influence of the dominant culture. And any attempt to justify their indoctrination is futile and amusing.
@IronColumnAnarchism In my reigion, southern ontario, there are many fascist heads who still even engage in activism.. Are you familiar with Gary Mchale?
you dont even know what fascism is. An dto say one of your heroes is hitler, yet you are of russian descent... very sad indeed. You hate your people so much that you worship a man that killed 15 million of your brothers and sisters. I pity your self hatred
fascism=consolidation of corporate and governmental power. And besides the US, true fascism is dead... and when the US dollar collapses, fascism will die. A few idiots in europe with no real power dont count :P
I believe that anarchy is the way in which people will find freedom. Unfortunately, there are too many selfish and power obsessed people to make it work today.
For all the wars around the world who you think people who are suffering blame it on? White, democrats/republicans, Christians or capitalists?2.??? I'm not mathematician so I don't calculate possibilities. What force? You can't learn to love, you have it or you don't. I must admit that this hippy-capitalist thing is kind of nice combination. Ego is constructed by someones performance within the collective. There is no proud without social merit.
If you are "unemployed" then go to the salvation army or a soup kitchen or something.
If you want some money, then pump people's gas, wash windows, mow a lawn, or DO SOMETHING. Save money. Hell, you can go and learn to live in the woods.
You think people have an obligation to cater to you or something?
I saw a man playing a guitar at the farmers market and his case was full of money by the end of the day.
Thanks for the advice. I don't speak only for myself or about present system. CapitalistAnarho is advocating for ''anarcho''- capitalism and that system have its consequence. It is in capitalist interest to eliminate any alternative for you, so he can pay you as little as possible.
Why can't "pre-industrial" society be taken as capitalistic? Why isn't an island a good example? What do you base this on?
Capitalism made the USA the richest country in the world. The US is becoming less of a free market and capitalistic economy and our economy is suffering at the same time.
More money works for everyone. You can work for your own money. Use the money to buy what you need.
Big difference is in the ''commodity-money-commodity'' and the ''money-commodity-money'' system. Search for the user brendanmcooney if you want to understand more. Island are in natural isolation unlike the rest of the world.
If I own 100000000$ and you 1$ this doesn't make me and you rich(just me). Big improvements are made by the public sector: education, health care etc. User: Gapcast.
Profit system have many downsides. User: TheLeftLibertarian. I don't argue against money (necessarily)
Meh, Capitlalism is just a model, it's not the emergent system itself. It wasn't the idea of Capitalism that made America rich, it was people doing what they wanted, period.
I can see a huge demand for non-profit socialized services in society today, in the absence of the state, I expect that these services would thrive.
You do something productive and you get to make money (or some form of capital) off of it.
What you describe as "social services" are currently supported by tax money. Without the state, you think these services will thrive?
I am sure there will be soup kitchens and such charity, but "social service" would be on the decline overall the way I see it. Especially without people being forced to give up a share of their hard earned capital.
I don't want the wealth that I produce stolen by a capitalist based on his "property-rights". If you work at producing, at servicing, at engineering, what have you, then all the wealth that you produce belongs to you. Not someone who's ancestor was ruthless enough to get wealthy off of slavery or feudalism, not someone who was favored by that person, and not someone who made his living off of the wealth of others. Capitalists are parasites, and their system keeps everyone from truly living.
Are you refering to intellectual property and such?
That can only be enforced through a STATE.
Without the state, capitalism would be you, for example, selling a replica 1969 Chevrolet Camaro for $20,000 without worrying about stupid copyright infringement and shit.
You are against statist-capitalism, not anarcho-capitalism.
No, I'm referring to the idea of profit and the notion of capitalist property.
And how do you think a capitalist would enforce his property rights in "anarcho-capitalism"? He would hire thugs to protect himself from those he exploits. Capitalism was born from the State, and it can only exist with the State to protect it.
How would ANY property rights be enforced in anarchy (in general)?
How is anyone being exploited if they are voluntary workers? What is "exploitation" to you?
Capitalism is basically a free market. Making money through voluntary exchanges of goods/services for money. Your wealth is representative of what you contribute to the demands of the marketplace.
The capitalist notion of property (i.e. the means of production in which there is an owner who makes a profit off of it) wouldn't exist, so that would take care of that problem.
Look up the Labor Theory of Value if you want to know what exploitation is. Granted, it doesn't have all the answers but it is a start.
Capitalism requires capitalists, a.k.a. people who make their money by "allowing" workers to use their "property", while also making the workers sell their labor to the capitalist.
I don't have a job. I made $500 about a week ago replacing a damaged pickup bed for somebody.
I capitalized on my knowledge and my tools, so I could make money by fixing someone's truck. I also capitalized on being able to charge a lower price than some bigger businesses (the guy saved at least $1000 by going to me...).
And since you don't seem to understand coercion, let me explain it to you. You don't always need a baton or a gun to coerce someone into doing something. All you need is a metaphorical carrot and stick. You say "work for me (or someone else who has the same function as me) or go homeless and starve." Then you say that if you want to get out of that dichotomy, you have to become one of the people who gets to say that, reinforcing the system. What if I object to the system?
For example being viewed as a commodity to be bought and sold on the market for the lowest price. Or how my tribe is not able to come together and function properly because capitalism makes us have to separate in order to feed our families. Or how I always have to choose between one boss or another, whether they are voted in or whether they sign my check. Or how I am unable to socialize and relax for the amount of time I choose because my time is devoted to laboring for someone else's profit.
Does the capitalist (or corporation aka group of capitalists) own the workplace in which the workers produce (which includes service, intellectual labor, etc.)? Does s/he own the tools with which material or immaterial productions are created?
And no, jobs are not voluntary. I have to take the job that will hire me because I have bills to pay. Why do I have bills to pay? Because we have a profit driven monetary economy. If I could choose what I wanted to do, it certainly wouldn't be this job.
You have bills to pay because you agreed to pay for the goods/services that other people are providing to you.
If you can't differentiate a voluntary act from a coerced act, and also aren't mature enough to recognize that you are responsible for your life, then this discussion is done.
There is no job in the United States that isn't voluntary.
I understand full well what capitalism is. I live in a capitalist country, many of my social relationships are defined by their role within capitalism. I don't know how somebody can analyze capitalism and come out with a positive opinion of it.
The only negative thing about capitalism is that you have to earn your living. I don't consider that a negative though because I don't expect anything to be free in life.
I don't sit on my ass and expect to have a plate of food land on the table.
If I don't like a job, then I will find another. If I don't want to be a conformist wage-slave, I learn some skills so that I can make money on my own.
You are missing the point. Everyone has to work doing something in order for society to function. There is no argument over that. The argument is against the idea that I have to sell my labor to someone else, then that person will take the fruit of my labor and make a profit off of it. In other words, I do the work, and a capitalist makes money off of it.
I would gladly do hard, unpleasant work in order to improve social conditions. The difference is that it would be voluntary, not coerced.
You don't have to sell your labor to someone else. It's called being self-employed, and you can also learn how to live self-sufficient in the woods.
If you apply to work on someone's business, then you are doing voluntary work for someone else. IT WAS YOUR DECISION, AND SAYING OTHERWISE IS BEING INTELLECTUALLY AND LOGICALLY DISHONEST.
If you don't want to work for someone else, THEN DON"T DO IT. FIND YOUR OWN WAY.
I do want to find my own way. A way out of the capitalist system of exploitation. And I'm not the only one, either. As is evidenced by the abundance of historical and contemporary documentation of masses of people fighting tooth and nail to create a new world without capitalism or to preserve the parts of their world without capitalism.
But you would argue that we don't have a right to that, we only have a right to participate in capitalism or to "drop out".
You think work in a socialist society is voluntary? Shiiiiit, if you consider being told what to do, and when to do it and how quickly to do it, with absolutely no choice at the barrel of a gun, then Communism is right for you.
@jjrglobal you don't even know what I'm talking about and I'm tired of arguing this point. I don't want to be told what to do by anybody. The main person who tells me what to do in my life is my boss, and since he signs my checks I don't have much of a choice. There doesn't need to be a gun to coerce me when there are bills to pay and mouths to feed.
And for the millionth time I AM ANTI-GOVERNMENT.
Now go research anarchist communism before you give me more shit.
Tasin. capitalist people do not understand the meaning of voluntary,cause this means that they will be working for some body else for free.they are not willing to share if there is not an immediate reward back.they are ready to have a leap of faith for god(no prove at all)but reluctant to believe in a better society when history has prove how we can change our systems with real education.this same people are scare of anarchism cause just don't know and cause is to much share,and they are greedy.
Not only do you not understand how it feels to be in a completely hopeless situation, unable to take control, you do not know what it means to be free. Good luck being a sheep. Enjoy your globalization and imperialism that goes with it.
Since you define a state as a territorial monopoly on force, how legitimate is someone's claim to property if they do not have a territorial monopoly of force on said property? Thus they would be making a state, and that's the rightist definitiont anyways.
Because revolution happened in a primarily agrain country doesn't mean it stayed that way, because it never did. Socialist revolutions (not just a band taking power) have occured in Russia, Spain, Ukraine, Hungary, Albania, Germany, and plenty of other countries, Leninists imposing themselves is different.
Also, anarchists are communists, go fuck yourself kiddo.
Erm, no, and originally the Vietnamese revolutionaries where in China's shere too, moving to the Soviets a later (they didn't join COMECON until 1978). Marxism is materialist and supports industrialization, you can't oppose industrial society and be any kind of Marxist, which disqualifies the Khmer Rouge.
Also, you can't support such an exploitative system as Capitalism and call yourself an anarchist, sorry champ.
Good video! I had many misconceptions about anarchism until a few days ago and a video series like this one made it much clearer and easier for me to understand, without the hyper-intellectual jargon that some people use. Anarchism is consistent with the egalitarian views that I've always accepted.
Also, your characterization of the Khmer Rouge as Leftist is dead wrong. They were insane and thought the traditional Cambodian village was the ideal lifestyle, to the point that urban workers weren't allowed to join the Party. They were even invaded by Vietnam, a Socialist country!
Ah, here's where the good old false dichotomy of collective and Individual steps in. So long as noone is forced into the collective or made to obey all-powerful leader/laws, the Collective and the Individual do not clash- they are in harmony, symbiotic off each other. Emma Goldman puts it in better words than I, I can't remember where....... but anyway. Ofcourse, there'd be many who wouldn't want to live in a Collective, and I don't see why they can't be seperate..... afterall, nothing forced...
Mainly because all the so-called "collectivist" governements so far have been nothing of the sort. Whether one agrees with collectivism or not, it doesn't take much to see that there's a big difference between what's been put in place in these countries and what the original theorists had in mind. For example, collectivism is about coming from the bottom up, rule by the people for the people, whereas what has happened in these countries is one-man dictatorship. Also, conformity- Far from
something that is looked upon as a good thing by true collectivists- but, loved by these dictatorships. They are perversions in the name of the original doctrine, excuses made for the pursuing of personal power over ideals.
The economic system of the Soviet Union wasn't really communism. It was a degenerated form of capitalism (a form of oligarchy). Trotsky called the Bolshevik party "The Red Bourgeoisie" because of it's similarities with the upper classes in corporate capitalism.
Anarcho-capitalism isn't real anarchism. Any group of people with capital are capable of creating a state. Capitalism is based on hierarchy and competition. One man is successful and gains capital, the other has less luck and loses capital. The people who lose their capital ("the workers") are forced to work for the successful one ("the businessman'). The businessmen want more capital so they create a state, taxes, "law enforcement" and a prison system (and occasionally a religion).
The term "capitalism" has an entirely subjective meaning and usually leads to a semantics cock contest where one side says, "No, THIS is captialism!!"
One side believes capitalism is free markets, and they wouldn't be far off because this definition did emerge in the 20th century to describe economies without state intervention.
However, the term was used much more widely in the 19th century to describe a system of exploitation in Europe which had much different property rights than the US.
In Europe, only those with ties to the State could aquire private property, therefore European anarchists and socialists called this capitalism. Indeed it was exploitation since the factory owner was simply given his "property" thanks to his ties to the state.
This is why most anarchists of the 18th and 19th century opposed private property.
communists still work for someone else that themselves and the community. Anarchism is the only ideology where the pover comes from the people to the use. Not from politicans to millions.
whenever I talk to others about anarchy/anarchism, I don't speak from a political/economic perspective, but from a personal perhaps philosophical perspective.
It is an approach to life, an idea that says that no one should decide what you do with your life.
And to be done away with domination, and bureaucracy, not to mention to get to a PLEASURABLE way of life, anti-authoritarian self-organization is the only way to get there.
yeah communism was ultimately anarchy. After the revolution there would be a leader to consolidate and stabilize the country, and after that power over their own lives would be given to the people. This didn't work in the past as people didn't let go of power.
Communism is a transitional stage to the ultimate free society-- anarchy! Eradicate capitalism, followed by the money system, and then comes the last proletarian revolution to end the state. That is why I fight for communism, despite my philosophical belief in Anarchy.
Anarchism is the only way the world will ever get along. LET ANARCHY REIGN!! --A--
SlyFox70100 1 month ago
since conservatism/rightism believes that the government should be limited, isn't anarchism just the most extreme form of right wing politics and not socialism? anarchism is the doctrine that the government should have a place in society whereas socialism believes it should have the biggest role in a society. Maybe I'm wrong though...
Fergusforslipknot 3 months ago
In the materialist conception of history formulated by Marx and Engles, stateless communism is the final stage of history, this is "pure" communism, a classless, stateless system based on common ownership and free-access, superabundance and maximum freedom for individuals to develop their own capacities and talents.
almanacofsleep 8 months ago
Marx said that the state would disolve once it reached communism. Communism is definately not a right wing theory, getting to communism may go through a right wing period but true communism is left
meow333333333 9 months ago
COMMUNIST-ANARCHISM is the answer, it's the most evolved form of socialism combining equality and liberty to one.
OldWalter 9 months ago
anarchy is individualism not co-operation. it is the idea that as a human i can make my decisions for me and you can for you. in other words complete isolationism, however inviduals can work together in an anarchist fashion without being socialist. Anarchism means freedom as in free from all influences givin if they choose. Anarchists are everyone in a way it is just how far can you allow your life to be controlled before you join a fight.
wowalinbie 10 months ago
@wowalinbie wrong! this thinking of yours is individualist/right wing libertarian thought. if you understand this subject properly you will now that anarchism starting with proudhon is bourgeoisie/utopian socialist thought.
mmantech 9 months ago
@mmantech True enough but there are multiple forms of anarchy and realisticly thinking anarchy is a utopia or that people can reach a utopia is not a valid possibility. where as u said social responsibility (socialist) is true but i still feel that no government and depending on individual responsibility is better. with no intrusion of societies black death of ideas. I still consider myself haveing anarchist ideas just a little bit different.
wowalinbie 9 months ago
@wowalinbie How can anarchy be individualism? the idea is based by people for people. The lack of trust and so individualism in most of societies today = the reason why anarchistideas exist. a good idea would be to destroy this monetary system for once. to use media in a good way, to educate children in a good way. to think ecological, to grow on with nature again instead of slowing the process down. to use technology in a good way finally. break the essence instead of every person on the top
punkunite123 9 months ago
In the UK we have capitalist socialism. There is a great big offensive pyramid on Canary Wharf financial centre and the elite bankers run every aspect of the country top-down. The socialism part only accounts for the idea that we should all have our "fair" share of the misery at the bottom.
CO2TROL 11 months ago
Anarchism, was created by a friend/critic of Karl Marx who advocated that in order to achieve a true socialist state, the government should be very decentralised and give the proletariat more control over their lives. Anarchism is often misperceived as a bunch of rebels who care about nothing. That's not true. I think Anarchism creates a perfect Marxist socialist state, but no big authoritarian government.
4500jas 11 months ago
@4500jasWrong! if you understand this subject properly you will now that anarchism(proudhon) is bourgeoisie/utopian socialist thought. anarchist dont like the fundemental acpect to human history and human nature and that is class struggle. some streams of thought like syndacalism may seem to adress this but they(anarchist) seem not to understand that in order to get to the point of no state u need; first the fall of bourgeoisie capitalist dictatorship. second the dictatorship of the proletariot
mmantech 9 months ago
@4500jas this then will lead to the end of class antagonism, following that is the natural dissolving of the state.
mmantech 9 months ago
@BucketsPuke1969
You see if you read the communist manifesto it says that the people should have common ownership of capital. Anarchism is a form of free non-authoritarian democratic communist government. Communist, but very liberal. Government would be replaced with elected councils. Decisions are democratically made by councils and the people. So basically it's still communist, but without an authoritarian government.
4500jas 11 months ago
So... anarchism is all about state control and state ownership?
BucketPukes1969 11 months ago
Comment removed
domapusic 1 year ago
There is no difference between genuine Communism, the libertarian socialist interpretation of Anarchism, and functioning Democracy...
wnxsilence 1 year ago 3
@wnxsilence I agree.
MrFuzzyballs69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Capitalism is the historic evolution of private property relationship of alienation,exploitation and suffering of humanity in a modality of production for profit in a world market of ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY and manipulation to perpetuate the conditions of exploitation in the interest of the Owning/Ruling elite. Capitalism is the monetary web of deception and suppresssion of humanity for the abstract process of capital accumulation and concentration . A system of dehumanisation and devaluation
arzoyan 1 year ago
In the socialist marxist state the hierarchy would be represented by workers and worker's representative at factory/small community level and the workers have the choice to choose there representatives or change it,so it's not like the today's state. Leninism isn't marxism.
evanescent25 1 year ago
I completely disagree. On the contrary, anarchism represents the ultra right, but without the totalitarian effect. I don't think a political spectrum diagram exists that can represent anarchism. But it certainly isn't a left wing school of thought. It rejects everything the left wing stands for- state control, regulation, equal society.
ToaJoe 1 year ago
@ToaJoe Not at all. The left-wing school of Anarcho-Communism has no state regulation, and a true equal society is more free than an unequal society, since all people have the same access to de means of productions and hence the same oportunity to satisfy their needs.
MrScar7X 1 year ago
@ToaJoe Thats not what socialism stands for, socialism stands for the workers owning the means of production. and we want that, but without the authoritarian "dictatorship of the prolitariat", "Communist" countries never seem to get past.
kwaal 9 months ago
I am not anti government or the state per sa, but the centralized bureaucratic state.I support the anarchist ideas of the automobiles local community that is directly democratic, libertarian, and more egalitarian with less hierarchy. The workers would own/control the means of production and property rights would be based on actual occupancy and use. Worker cooperatives, local assemblies, local communities in a sense are government in that they are a system to govern but its from the people.
Spillers72 1 year ago
Fuck the government and fuck the greedy pigs and lazy bastards!!! Anarchism FTW!!!
SkankinRobots 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He is a MASSIVE supporter of the State. He is a Socialist!
Everything should be Voluntary, the EXACT opposite of Communism/Fascism.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
Anarchy is not at all the same as Socialism. Anarchy = no Government. Socialism = "omnipotent", omnipresent government. Communism = a promise of a heaven on earth that is supposed to come after socialism, but is in fact only a a false promise to lure people and can not be put in practice using Marx theory. If Anarchy is gonna work, people need extremely high morals. But Marx labels all standards for morality as obsolete.
BTW: Socialism = equality - but equality does not at all = Freedom.
Supenmanu 1 year ago
Socialism doesn't necessarily mean government. Socialism, as Anarcho-Socialists see it, simply means that the people run their own affairs & the means of production is in the hands of the workers rather than being in the hands of a proxy such as the State.
Freedom without equality is impossible. Equality meaning equal Status to most anarchists. Even without a State, you are not free if you are being bossed around by superiors at work 8 hours a day. Only worker managed entities could solve this.
CapitalistHolocaust 1 year ago
@CapitalistHolocaust: maybe you should look up the definition of Socialism or read Marx, as even Marx would disagree with your definition of Socialism. In Socialism everything is state owned. it's a state-Economy. So how could you have a state economy without a state? Wouldn't that be contradicting itself?
Having freedom and equality simultaneously is equally contradictory. How could you make all people equal without taking away the the freedom of all the people who want to be different?
Supenmanu 1 year ago
@Supenmanu
"The Proletariat only needs the state that is withering away."-Marx,Lenin,Tito
Sismiques 1 year ago
Forcing people to toil for the needs of the collective is not anarchism. True anarchism recognizes the rights of the individual. Besides, I thought one of the staples of anarchist theory was the non-aggression principle, and socialism is VERY aggressive.
TheSkunker 1 year ago
anarchy is right wing and communism, national socialism all that is left wing dont belive me go live in korea or china and see how much the government there likes anarchist.
ITSHAVOK765 1 year ago
@ITSHAVOK765: The Anarchist FAQ states their position on the political spectrum to be on the Left and Roderick Long, a market anarchist philosopher considers himself a Leftist.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@ITSHAVOK765 don't worry about the idiots... it seems like all of the commies want to say that Anarchism is the same these days.... I just ignore them.
HerrSpieldose 1 year ago
marxism FTW!
supermorshu 1 year ago
marxism FTW!
supermorshu 1 year ago
there is no government,
like no government
great video man, keep it up!
-Cheers from a Communist
lordskyller 1 year ago
a true communist is anarchist its called marxism at least i think
kyledubrule 1 year ago
@kyledubrule That is technically correct. Both have the goals of removing the system.
quote3000 1 year ago
Capitalism has its issues but the concept of socialism is just laughable and in no way sustainable or ideal for anyone with an ounce of motivation or individuality.
There will always be people better off or worse off than yourself, accept this and get on with it and try to aspire yourself to be better.
Socialism is envy and the equal sharing of misery.
summ0004 1 year ago
@summ0004 Marxism is as ridiculous an ideology as anarchism. Where Marxism has an advantage is in giving license to stealing. This is why anarchist systems either quickly dissipate and collapse or, like the anarchists of the Spanish Civil War, become hypocritical authoritarians.
Marxism is a pyramid scheme for exploiting capitalist systems. Anarchism is just a joke amongst college students.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@summ0004: Read Kevin Carson's "the Iron Fist behind the Invisible Hand." By the way, Marx himself criticized that "Crude communism" which "is only the culmination of this envy and of this levelling-down proceeding from the preconceived minimum" (Economic and Philosophic Manuscript 1844)
DonKhoi 1 year ago
REMEMBER WHERE WE LIVE NOW
THE PEOPLE HAVE POWER FOR ONE DAY EVERY 4 YEARS (US) OR 5 YEARS (UK)
POWER IS NOT POWER IF YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT UP AFTER A DAY
1 DAY OF ANARCHY FOR EVERY 4/5 YEARS OF FASCISM
THIS IS OUR DEMOCRACY
natmanprime 1 year ago
well I am an anarchist and I don't care about all of that bullshit theory crap... I just think the world will get sick of the murder of their nations and choose to get along and not vote...
it is simple and common sense and doesn't require explanations that require 90 mg of adderall to understand and reply to...
the way to shut them down isn't violence... it is to make them subhuman like they do to you... by laughing at them and ignoring them. people will get sick of it someday.
HerrSpieldose 1 year ago
@HerrSpieldose correct
because anarchy is more of a law of nature
rather than another 'ism'
however to talk to such academic types you can tell them in their language: "morality rests upon the notion of personal responsibility. As does anarchy."
They already accept the first bit in their philosophy, so they have to accept the morality of anarchy. *POP* converted lol
I would advise this rather than waiting until it gets so bad etc.
someday is in your lifetime if you want it
anyday
: ()
natmanprime 1 year ago
You quoted Kropotkin,that's nice! i hope you are aware that he was propably the most famous Anarchocommunist of all.The word Communism as usually used in the US needs semantic clarification because the understanding of this word is still twisted and that makes it difficult to use in a claryfying way.
Marxism or Statesocialism(the term you have used in your quotes)would have been more appropriate in my oppinion.
agnostoatomo 1 year ago
ACTUALLY ANARCHISM IS XCOMMUINSM+MORE BUT ITS THE SAME THING.
It should say: Marxism VERSUS Anarchism, Marxists beleives in the idealogical ROAD CALLED SOCIALISM to COMMUINSM ANARCHISTS IN DIRECT-FULL-DEMOCRACY/COMMUNISM, LIKE THE SPANISH REVOLUTION. LEARN UR WORDS FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111
MagnitudePerson 1 year ago
Are they teaching this stupid shit in public schools today or what? What is with you younger people and Socialism? Have you never read history? Do you not understand freedom and free market Capitalism?
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal younger people and socialism? Most of the people I know who are "socialist" of any stripe are well into adulthood. And the people who subscribe to the kind of "socialism" you are most likely referring to are mostly baby-boomers who never moved past the New Left.
I understand freedom and free market capitalism. I want the former so I am against the latter.
Nope, public school taught me some pretty conservative bullshit. Took some self-education to come to where I am now.
TasinAkiwo 1 year ago
@TasinAkiwo Wow, you answered to that immature retard. he was just trying to piss you of, shoulf have spammed and hacked his account...
MagnitudePerson 1 year ago
@MagnitudePerson yeah I'm stupid like that sometimes =p
TasinAkiwo 1 year ago
Anarchists and Capitalists say "Hands off the state". True socialism is a mass movement, where the mass of people take the state out of the hands of the capitalists and puts it in their own hands. True socialism comes from the bottom-up.
Forget Stalinism and the bureaucrats, real socialism is the power of the masses... ... it needs no repressive structures to control the masses as the power is already in the hands of the masses.
tellyontellyon 1 year ago
The end-point of communism is the end of the state.
We need to take over the state and then capitalists cannot use the state against us.
Anarchism wants to make the leap from state to no-state in one go... but the capitalists will simply re-organise an 'authority' and rebuild every time they are smashed.
Communism provides a path, protects us from counter-revolution and gives the mass of people time to develop towards a 'free' consciousness.
tellyontellyon 1 year ago
@tellyontellyon fuck that. The state is counter-revolutionary in itself. Its point is to manage capital, to provide mediation and pacification between capital and the proletariat. Look at every revolutionary situation in history, the state has always come down against the masses because THEY CANNOT BE CONTROLLED.
And regardless of whether the pig is wearing a red white and blue patch or just a red one, he will still be my enemy. We are ungovernable.
TasinAkiwo 1 year ago
@TasinAkiwo
Are you going to abandon capitalism all by yourself?
Organisation is needed.
A 'bottum up' direct-democratic socialist 'state' has nothing to do with capitalism, it would simply be the organised workers masses. Capitalism would be abandoned not 'managed'.
If the 'state' is trying to control the masses then it is not socialist. A true socialist 'state' is simply the workers organising themselves.
There won't be 'leaders', only workers delegates that can be instantly recalled.
tellyontellyon 1 year ago
@tellyontellyon I'm perfectly fine with organization, but organization does not imply a State. If I come together with friends, is that a state? What about when I decide to work on a project with people of a like mind?
The modern State is a function of capitalism. They are inseparable, unless they are both destroyed they will simply resurrect the other in a new form.
Again, look at history. Every "socialist state" has betrayed the revolution, even done what the bourgeois weren't willing to do.
TasinAkiwo 1 year ago
@TasinAkiwo
Stalin betrayed the revolution in Russia, and had a hand in the failure in Germany which sealed the fate of the Russians. There is nothing inevitable about the degeneration that happened in Russia. 21 Capitalist countries attacking Russia just after the October revolution, and the underdeveloped nature of Russia at the time played a massive part in what happened there.
The same attacks would happen to an anarchist society. We would need organised armies and industry to fight.
tellyontellyon 1 year ago
@tellyontellyon What, we need to do like Trotsky did when he sent the Red Army to crush the Kronstadt rebellion? Lets not forget that Lenin paved the way for Stalin, the latter simply developed the ideas of the former. The betrayal comes from the recuperation of the revolution by the State, not by some individual who wasn't pure enough to inherit the crown.
We are attacked now, we will be attacked later. A State won't solve that problem for us, it will just increase our problems.
TasinAkiwo 1 year ago
@TasinAkiwo
Kronstadt... Trotsky's replies to this can be found online..
You are repeating the same old Capitalist nonsense about Leninism leading to Stalinism... Stalin was of course happy to put out the same propoganda and potray what he did as a development of Leninism.
The totalitarian bureaucratic state of Stalin was not Marxism.
We will just have to agree to disagree on the practicalities of how to overthrow capitalism comrade, the vast libraries of argument can be found online.
tellyontellyon 1 year ago
@dazza5266 Some people are unable to thwart or comprehend their indoctrination. The whole choice and free will argument is kind of weak because it ignores the environment’s impact upon the individual and the greater community itself. And when you say that "the minority was crucified 2000 years ago " are you referring to the character Jesus ???
th3inquisitiv31 1 year ago
@dazza5266 Social mobility isn't the reason why people like capitalism. People like capitalism because they are slaves. It is just like religion. The majority of people in the "my" society are not Christians because of some divine intervention, but because of the influence of the dominant culture. And any attempt to justify their indoctrination is futile and amusing.
th3inquisitiv31 1 year ago
Lol i love this quote: There's no government like no government.
AZKOJYUN 1 year ago
arachy = is means no goverment plain and simple you keep what you own
communism = dictatorship
pure communism=same as anarchy but the state owns every thing (even you ...KARL MARX Laughs HAHAHAHA)
locknes2008 1 year ago
AANARCHISM IS COMMUNISM, its state-less. China and North Korea are fucking State-Crapitalists, Free Market/Slavery is just the same!!! DAMMIT
MagnitudePerson 1 year ago
wow really great video!
except a few thingsbut i guess that is normal and good because discussions are always good :)
greetings from germany ;)
no gods. no states. no servants.
(A)
6ch6ris6 1 year ago 4
Actually, for the most part fascism is dead. Aryan Guard in Canada got shut down.
IronColumnAnarchism 2 years ago
@IronColumnAnarchism In my reigion, southern ontario, there are many fascist heads who still even engage in activism.. Are you familiar with Gary Mchale?
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
Yes, I am aware of Gary Mchale. There can be "many o' fascists" in parts of Canada, but for the most part, fascism is dead.
IronColumnAnarchism 1 year ago
you dont even know what fascism is. An dto say one of your heroes is hitler, yet you are of russian descent... very sad indeed. You hate your people so much that you worship a man that killed 15 million of your brothers and sisters. I pity your self hatred
slickrickdarula 2 years ago
booo! no comments available on your page? what happened? cant handle all the people calling you what you are? a small minded bigot!
slickrickdarula 2 years ago
fascism=consolidation of corporate and governmental power. And besides the US, true fascism is dead... and when the US dollar collapses, fascism will die. A few idiots in europe with no real power dont count :P
slickrickdarula 2 years ago
This guys is playing word games;anarchism and communism are identical(original meanings,people!)
anarksee 2 years ago
Max Nomad considered Bakunin to be a FRAUD;read 'Political Heretics'.
anarksee 2 years ago
you say you love anarchy but you dont know what it is. you dont know the "truth"
ImaJewishNazi 2 years ago
ANARCHY is the answer to our problems...
guyaddictive 2 years ago
I believe that anarchy is the way in which people will find freedom. Unfortunately, there are too many selfish and power obsessed people to make it work today.
BenGordonBITCHSLAP 2 years ago
Obey the rules, conform.
metalguitarplayer1 2 years ago
I guess you were just being sarcastic so I'll thumb you up :)
Mklztr 2 years ago
excelent video!!! really good!!!!
love it!!!
LOVE AND ANARCHY!
salud y acracia compañero
nicozca 2 years ago
Comment removed
ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER 2 years ago
Ireland and Iceland had what could be called an anarcho-capitalist society. In my opinion.
Wealth was heavily based on what you contributed to the community. No one was entitled to a damn thing, including free money or welfare.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Fraternally yours for the abolition of the state and the wages system.
majorMcpharter 2 years ago
For all the wars around the world who you think people who are suffering blame it on? White, democrats/republicans, Christians or capitalists?2.??? I'm not mathematician so I don't calculate possibilities. What force? You can't learn to love, you have it or you don't. I must admit that this hippy-capitalist thing is kind of nice combination. Ego is constructed by someones performance within the collective. There is no proud without social merit.
organdva 2 years ago 4
You have a lot to learn. You haven't taken in much of life's lessons...
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
but wats your opinion then?
adzug 2 years ago
My opinion on what?
Refresh my memory...
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
oh you were talkin bout some guy learnin lifes lessons i was wonderin wat your opinion was bout what they were talkin bout
adzug 2 years ago
If you want my opinion on "Communism vs Capitalism", then read my previous comments.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
oh ok sorry i missed it
adzug 2 years ago
And you don't see suffering as part of profit making. The label that you have presents the opposite of what you preach for most of the world.
There can be no peace without justice, no tolerance without equality, no sharing in greed-based-system and no love in egoism.
organdva 2 years ago 2
What is stopping you to pursue a life of peace and happiness today? How?
If I'm unemployed, I can't just live, can I?
organdva 2 years ago
If you are "unemployed" then go to the salvation army or a soup kitchen or something.
If you want some money, then pump people's gas, wash windows, mow a lawn, or DO SOMETHING. Save money. Hell, you can go and learn to live in the woods.
You think people have an obligation to cater to you or something?
I saw a man playing a guitar at the farmers market and his case was full of money by the end of the day.
Take responsibility for yourself and GROW UP.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Thanks for the advice. I don't speak only for myself or about present system. CapitalistAnarho is advocating for ''anarcho''- capitalism and that system have its consequence. It is in capitalist interest to eliminate any alternative for you, so he can pay you as little as possible.
Fighting this system is taking care of myself.
organdva 2 years ago
Taking care of yourself is capitalism...
Look at Anarchic Iceland and Ireland.
It is capitalism that offers alternatives. You vote with your wallet.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
It works for capitalist.
Pre-industrial society can't be taken as capitalistic and islands are not good enough examples for anything.
Capitalism works(giving you that generously) only in theory. More money more votes is not what can work for everybody.
organdva 2 years ago
Why can't "pre-industrial" society be taken as capitalistic? Why isn't an island a good example? What do you base this on?
Capitalism made the USA the richest country in the world. The US is becoming less of a free market and capitalistic economy and our economy is suffering at the same time.
More money works for everyone. You can work for your own money. Use the money to buy what you need.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Big difference is in the ''commodity-money-commodity'' and the ''money-commodity-money'' system. Search for the user brendanmcooney if you want to understand more. Island are in natural isolation unlike the rest of the world.
If I own 100000000$ and you 1$ this doesn't make me and you rich(just me). Big improvements are made by the public sector: education, health care etc. User: Gapcast.
Profit system have many downsides. User: TheLeftLibertarian. I don't argue against money (necessarily)
organdva 2 years ago
The anarchic Western United States was very capitalist as well. Not as much as Iceland and Ireland were though.
I can work in exchange fore some of your money.
What are one of the "downsides" to a profit system? No free lunch?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Are you really putting THOUGHT into this?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
I hope my previous comment would help.
organdva 2 years ago
Meh, Capitlalism is just a model, it's not the emergent system itself. It wasn't the idea of Capitalism that made America rich, it was people doing what they wanted, period.
I can see a huge demand for non-profit socialized services in society today, in the absence of the state, I expect that these services would thrive.
feloniousbutterfly 2 years ago
Doing what you want is the bases of capitalism.
You do something productive and you get to make money (or some form of capital) off of it.
What you describe as "social services" are currently supported by tax money. Without the state, you think these services will thrive?
I am sure there will be soup kitchens and such charity, but "social service" would be on the decline overall the way I see it. Especially without people being forced to give up a share of their hard earned capital.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Capitalism is the most "emergent" model there is. The FREE MARKET was what capitalism was before getting its name.
I provide something to people and I get rewarded for it.
Capitalism is the most anarchic system there is.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
I don't want the wealth that I produce stolen by a capitalist based on his "property-rights". If you work at producing, at servicing, at engineering, what have you, then all the wealth that you produce belongs to you. Not someone who's ancestor was ruthless enough to get wealthy off of slavery or feudalism, not someone who was favored by that person, and not someone who made his living off of the wealth of others. Capitalists are parasites, and their system keeps everyone from truly living.
TasinAkiwo 2 years ago
"property-rights"
Are you refering to intellectual property and such?
That can only be enforced through a STATE.
Without the state, capitalism would be you, for example, selling a replica 1969 Chevrolet Camaro for $20,000 without worrying about stupid copyright infringement and shit.
You are against statist-capitalism, not anarcho-capitalism.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
No, I'm referring to the idea of profit and the notion of capitalist property.
And how do you think a capitalist would enforce his property rights in "anarcho-capitalism"? He would hire thugs to protect himself from those he exploits. Capitalism was born from the State, and it can only exist with the State to protect it.
TasinAkiwo 2 years ago
You don't think people should have profits?
How would ANY property rights be enforced in anarchy (in general)?
How is anyone being exploited if they are voluntary workers? What is "exploitation" to you?
Capitalism is basically a free market. Making money through voluntary exchanges of goods/services for money. Your wealth is representative of what you contribute to the demands of the marketplace.
I really think you misunderstand capitalism.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
The capitalist notion of property (i.e. the means of production in which there is an owner who makes a profit off of it) wouldn't exist, so that would take care of that problem.
Look up the Labor Theory of Value if you want to know what exploitation is. Granted, it doesn't have all the answers but it is a start.
Capitalism requires capitalists, a.k.a. people who make their money by "allowing" workers to use their "property", while also making the workers sell their labor to the capitalist.
TasinAkiwo 2 years ago
Here's something for you to think about.
I don't have a job. I made $500 about a week ago replacing a damaged pickup bed for somebody.
I capitalized on my knowledge and my tools, so I could make money by fixing someone's truck. I also capitalized on being able to charge a lower price than some bigger businesses (the guy saved at least $1000 by going to me...).
Profit and greed are the same thing to you?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Indeed it is. If you had not needed money and he wasn't going to pay you, would you still have fixed his car?
TasinAkiwo 2 years ago
I am not going to sacrifice my time, energy, and resources on someone else, without having a good reason to.
You think people are entitled to free auto repairs/service and that I shouldn't charge?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
And since you don't seem to understand coercion, let me explain it to you. You don't always need a baton or a gun to coerce someone into doing something. All you need is a metaphorical carrot and stick. You say "work for me (or someone else who has the same function as me) or go homeless and starve." Then you say that if you want to get out of that dichotomy, you have to become one of the people who gets to say that, reinforcing the system. What if I object to the system?
TasinAkiwo 2 years ago 3
Nobody is coercing you to work at the job you are at.
You are talking about your social life being affected by this. In what way, for example?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
For example being viewed as a commodity to be bought and sold on the market for the lowest price. Or how my tribe is not able to come together and function properly because capitalism makes us have to separate in order to feed our families. Or how I always have to choose between one boss or another, whether they are voted in or whether they sign my check. Or how I am unable to socialize and relax for the amount of time I choose because my time is devoted to laboring for someone else's profit.
TasinAkiwo 2 years ago
You can't own a "means of production", but you can buy equipment that provides some type of "means of production".
I know a man that makes money by selling knives that he custom forges.
He capitalized on his skills and equipment.
Jobs are voluntary. It is your choice to work for someone else...
How old are you?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Does the capitalist (or corporation aka group of capitalists) own the workplace in which the workers produce (which includes service, intellectual labor, etc.)? Does s/he own the tools with which material or immaterial productions are created?
And no, jobs are not voluntary. I have to take the job that will hire me because I have bills to pay. Why do I have bills to pay? Because we have a profit driven monetary economy. If I could choose what I wanted to do, it certainly wouldn't be this job.
TasinAkiwo 2 years ago 3
You have bills to pay because you agreed to pay for the goods/services that other people are providing to you.
If you can't differentiate a voluntary act from a coerced act, and also aren't mature enough to recognize that you are responsible for your life, then this discussion is done.
There is no job in the United States that isn't voluntary.
You chose your bills.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Comment removed
lapwiz 2 years ago
You don't know what capitalism is.
You hate something that you truly don't understand...
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
I understand full well what capitalism is. I live in a capitalist country, many of my social relationships are defined by their role within capitalism. I don't know how somebody can analyze capitalism and come out with a positive opinion of it.
TasinAkiwo 2 years ago 3
The only negative thing about capitalism is that you have to earn your living. I don't consider that a negative though because I don't expect anything to be free in life.
I don't sit on my ass and expect to have a plate of food land on the table.
If I don't like a job, then I will find another. If I don't want to be a conformist wage-slave, I learn some skills so that I can make money on my own.
I take control of my life. I am a man.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
You are missing the point. Everyone has to work doing something in order for society to function. There is no argument over that. The argument is against the idea that I have to sell my labor to someone else, then that person will take the fruit of my labor and make a profit off of it. In other words, I do the work, and a capitalist makes money off of it.
I would gladly do hard, unpleasant work in order to improve social conditions. The difference is that it would be voluntary, not coerced.
TasinAkiwo 2 years ago 16
You don't have to sell your labor to someone else. It's called being self-employed, and you can also learn how to live self-sufficient in the woods.
If you apply to work on someone's business, then you are doing voluntary work for someone else. IT WAS YOUR DECISION, AND SAYING OTHERWISE IS BEING INTELLECTUALLY AND LOGICALLY DISHONEST.
If you don't want to work for someone else, THEN DON"T DO IT. FIND YOUR OWN WAY.
Is it really so hard for you to understand this?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
I do want to find my own way. A way out of the capitalist system of exploitation. And I'm not the only one, either. As is evidenced by the abundance of historical and contemporary documentation of masses of people fighting tooth and nail to create a new world without capitalism or to preserve the parts of their world without capitalism.
But you would argue that we don't have a right to that, we only have a right to participate in capitalism or to "drop out".
TasinAkiwo 2 years ago
Finding your own way.
You are thinking like a capitalist and you don't even know it...
You choose to remain ignorant out of bias.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago 2
@TasinAkiwo
You think work in a socialist society is voluntary? Shiiiiit, if you consider being told what to do, and when to do it and how quickly to do it, with absolutely no choice at the barrel of a gun, then Communism is right for you.
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal you don't even know what I'm talking about and I'm tired of arguing this point. I don't want to be told what to do by anybody. The main person who tells me what to do in my life is my boss, and since he signs my checks I don't have much of a choice. There doesn't need to be a gun to coerce me when there are bills to pay and mouths to feed.
And for the millionth time I AM ANTI-GOVERNMENT.
Now go research anarchist communism before you give me more shit.
TasinAkiwo 1 year ago
Tasin. capitalist people do not understand the meaning of voluntary,cause this means that they will be working for some body else for free.they are not willing to share if there is not an immediate reward back.they are ready to have a leap of faith for god(no prove at all)but reluctant to believe in a better society when history has prove how we can change our systems with real education.this same people are scare of anarchism cause just don't know and cause is to much share,and they are greedy.
vectorca 11 months ago
Not only do you not understand how it feels to be in a completely hopeless situation, unable to take control, you do not know what it means to be free. Good luck being a sheep. Enjoy your globalization and imperialism that goes with it.
blackfireINSANITY 2 years ago
You are talking out of your ass...
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
And no, I don't think a profit oriented economy is healthy. Greed is a negative, period.
TasinAkiwo 2 years ago
So you need collective consensus or at least majority? What benefits do you think people want?
organdva 2 years ago
Since you define a state as a territorial monopoly on force, how legitimate is someone's claim to property if they do not have a territorial monopoly of force on said property? Thus they would be making a state, and that's the rightist definitiont anyways.
You're not an anarchist because:
You support Capitalism
You deny class struggle
You support property
You're not working class
You're an idiot.
NestorMakhno1936 2 years ago
you can critisize an idea but when u go after a person you weaken your argument
adzug 2 years ago
You tell those fools,my comrade!The Black Army!
anarksee 2 years ago
Gimme the method! How you(we) should get to ''your' anarchy?
organdva 2 years ago
Because revolution happened in a primarily agrain country doesn't mean it stayed that way, because it never did. Socialist revolutions (not just a band taking power) have occured in Russia, Spain, Ukraine, Hungary, Albania, Germany, and plenty of other countries, Leninists imposing themselves is different.
Also, anarchists are communists, go fuck yourself kiddo.
NestorMakhno1936 2 years ago
Erm, no, and originally the Vietnamese revolutionaries where in China's shere too, moving to the Soviets a later (they didn't join COMECON until 1978). Marxism is materialist and supports industrialization, you can't oppose industrial society and be any kind of Marxist, which disqualifies the Khmer Rouge.
Also, you can't support such an exploitative system as Capitalism and call yourself an anarchist, sorry champ.
NestorMakhno1936 2 years ago
Good video! I had many misconceptions about anarchism until a few days ago and a video series like this one made it much clearer and easier for me to understand, without the hyper-intellectual jargon that some people use. Anarchism is consistent with the egalitarian views that I've always accepted.
AfricanPrince 2 years ago
Also, your characterization of the Khmer Rouge as Leftist is dead wrong. They were insane and thought the traditional Cambodian village was the ideal lifestyle, to the point that urban workers weren't allowed to join the Party. They were even invaded by Vietnam, a Socialist country!
NestorMakhno1936 2 years ago
Your spelling is always bad.
NestorMakhno1936 2 years ago
Ah, here's where the good old false dichotomy of collective and Individual steps in. So long as noone is forced into the collective or made to obey all-powerful leader/laws, the Collective and the Individual do not clash- they are in harmony, symbiotic off each other. Emma Goldman puts it in better words than I, I can't remember where....... but anyway. Ofcourse, there'd be many who wouldn't want to live in a Collective, and I don't see why they can't be seperate..... afterall, nothing forced...
RedAthena1919 2 years ago
Mainly because all the so-called "collectivist" governements so far have been nothing of the sort. Whether one agrees with collectivism or not, it doesn't take much to see that there's a big difference between what's been put in place in these countries and what the original theorists had in mind. For example, collectivism is about coming from the bottom up, rule by the people for the people, whereas what has happened in these countries is one-man dictatorship. Also, conformity- Far from
RedAthena1919 2 years ago
something that is looked upon as a good thing by true collectivists- but, loved by these dictatorships. They are perversions in the name of the original doctrine, excuses made for the pursuing of personal power over ideals.
RedAthena1919 2 years ago
I think that's Maoism, yes?
And, seriously, Stalinist or Maoist? There's little or no difference between the two.
RedAthena1919 2 years ago
The economic system of the Soviet Union wasn't really communism. It was a degenerated form of capitalism (a form of oligarchy). Trotsky called the Bolshevik party "The Red Bourgeoisie" because of it's similarities with the upper classes in corporate capitalism.
AnarchyIsTheFuture 2 years ago 6
Anarcho-capitalism isn't real anarchism. Any group of people with capital are capable of creating a state. Capitalism is based on hierarchy and competition. One man is successful and gains capital, the other has less luck and loses capital. The people who lose their capital ("the workers") are forced to work for the successful one ("the businessman'). The businessmen want more capital so they create a state, taxes, "law enforcement" and a prison system (and occasionally a religion).
AnarchyIsTheFuture 2 years ago 6
Capitalism is based on working for what you get in life and only being given what is voluntarily granted to you..
Workers are not "forced" to work for the "businessman".
You have to spend capital (money, labor, etc) to receive goods/service and obtain other capital.
You can save your money that you are paid from your employer to start making your own business.
Capitalism is not force and to say it isn't anarchy has no logical basis.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
The term "capitalism" has an entirely subjective meaning and usually leads to a semantics cock contest where one side says, "No, THIS is captialism!!"
One side believes capitalism is free markets, and they wouldn't be far off because this definition did emerge in the 20th century to describe economies without state intervention.
However, the term was used much more widely in the 19th century to describe a system of exploitation in Europe which had much different property rights than the US.
Father0Blivion 2 years ago
In Europe, only those with ties to the State could aquire private property, therefore European anarchists and socialists called this capitalism. Indeed it was exploitation since the factory owner was simply given his "property" thanks to his ties to the state.
This is why most anarchists of the 18th and 19th century opposed private property.
Father0Blivion 2 years ago
Or the extinction is Earthian Humanity's future...
anarksee 2 years ago
Anarcho-Capitalist= Really Really Republican
AristocraticPenguin 2 years ago 3
communists still work for someone else that themselves and the community. Anarchism is the only ideology where the pover comes from the people to the use. Not from politicans to millions.
ANALTERROR69 2 years ago
Anarcho-capitalism is the only way. Communism will just have the same consequences as always, no matter what the name. You people will never learn.
Kozor999 2 years ago
Sure there should be people with private armies...
ByDDD 2 years ago
im an anarcho communist
ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER 2 years ago 3
This misconception has been addressed.
NoMorFear 2 years ago
reformism is statist.
vdmerwe 2 years ago
Libery above All
Aeon135 2 years ago 3
whenever I talk to others about anarchy/anarchism, I don't speak from a political/economic perspective, but from a personal perhaps philosophical perspective.
It is an approach to life, an idea that says that no one should decide what you do with your life.
And to be done away with domination, and bureaucracy, not to mention to get to a PLEASURABLE way of life, anti-authoritarian self-organization is the only way to get there.
m0bi 2 years ago 5
Well read. I support anarchism in the form of libertarian socialism.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago 7
COMMUNISM IS OUR FUTURE
rokarollaph 2 years ago 3
Only if we kill of the anti-communists.And SOON.
anarksee 2 years ago
yeah communism was ultimately anarchy. After the revolution there would be a leader to consolidate and stabilize the country, and after that power over their own lives would be given to the people. This didn't work in the past as people didn't let go of power.
OwzyB 2 years ago 5
Communism is a transitional stage to the ultimate free society-- anarchy! Eradicate capitalism, followed by the money system, and then comes the last proletarian revolution to end the state. That is why I fight for communism, despite my philosophical belief in Anarchy.
WeirdoutFilms 2 years ago