Anarchist Conundrums

[MrPmj1979]

How could anarchy preserve social order with no power structures of any kind?

[chh5555]

and this relates to anarchy how?? I kept waiting for you to get to the point...

[plusthinking]

this has nothing to do with anarchism, read up on it.

[Misantropo04]

You are fuckng right Fascist!!!

Take your flag and put in your funcking ass!!!!

[Nebelung13]

the major problem of anarchic ideology is that it can only work if every single being converts to it and believes in it 100%

So yeah, its implemtation success rate is next to nill

[Nebelung13]

the major problem of anarchic ideology is that it can only work if every single being converts to it and believes in it 100%

So yeah, its implemtation success rate is next to nill

[icecreamtrepan]

What is this guy talking about racialism denying an individual? Race is a Western concept, if you're going to call yourself an anarchist, it is not just opposition to the state, it's the opposition to all forms of social domination. Considering that race is and continues to be a concept that divides people and privileges white people over all else, any type of racialism is inherently incompatible with anarchism. Race is a social construct that is to be deconstructed, not ignored or embraced.

[dumb14wanker]

getting rid of private property is an awful idea . I really never got that anarchist socialist thing like how could u say eveyrone is free without allowing some to won private things privacy is a big part of freedom.

[icecreamtrepan]

Anarchist critiques of private property is based around the idea of putting a fence around something. It's this institution or this individuals and I can't access it, that creates a hierarchy, anarchists are opposed to hierarchy. This does not mean there aren't possessions, like a house or such. It just means that regardless of who possesses something, it is still freely and equally shared amongst all if it is needed. If you are traveling, mi casa es su casa.

[dumb14wanker]

SO you would be cool with a bunch of dudes invading your house to chill? eating your food and shit

[icecreamtrepan]

Granted this happens on an individual level in SPITE of private property. Most anarchist critiques of property are towards large accumulations of wealth or an institution. One cannot say it is freedom when a corporation can buy park land and turn it into a shopping mall or when people are evicted thanks to gentrification and the price of rent being raised. Or when a small group of people make the decisions in one's workplace. Property is selective access, a hierarchy, not anarchy.

[dumb14wanker]

what is the hierarchy is voluntary? Its not like every steel worker can run the company himself, and for that reason he sells his labor to a man who can work him in the right places to max profit. The laborer understands this (usually) and it is voluntary as long as some form of wage is received. And no its not cool for a corporation to take park land. But in a free market a park would be protected as someone would protect a company. because it would be privately owned land in public use

[sexdrugsRnR]

1.if you were to take a person of race X and raise him in place Y, and if he did not know he is race X, then the person would think he is race Y.

2. in 'anarchy,' nobody expects anyone to uphold anything. if other people want to be coerced, that is fine, leave me out of it. self-defense is moral.

3. the solution of god stops philosophy, just as it is with the solution of the state.

[sexdrugsRnR]

the only reason i bother to respond is because you dilute others with your propaganda. go try and refute mises and rothbard... read 'Civil disobedience' by thoreau to understand the anarchist perspective.

[LordSomers]

You elucidate many of the criticisms we right-anarchists have of the anarchist left. Very good.

[sexdrugsRnR]

there really is no difference.. since in 'anarchy' we would all be doing our own thing anyway.

[Cefuroxx]

if all other options have been exhausted prior to the creation of the state by the rich and famous then the use of force can be justified to keep others from creating a central government

[Sepero1]

Anarchists believe in two forms of violence: Initiatory and Retaliatory. Initiatory being non-acceptable, Retaliatory being acceptable.

[anavarre]

Though most of your questions are a little more complex, I will say that most anarchist (including napalmtube, I believe) go by the idea of property based on use. You use your house and your computer, so they're yours. The workers use the factories so they own them. This prevents people from claiming more property than they can use.

[DaveDoggOwns]

I believe property is based on use, (though I do think workers and capitalists alike must honor contracts and the NAP) This is the only part of mutualism I adhere too.

Does it make sense for someone to claim the grand canyon and have property rights over it without taking into consideration whether or not he/she used it or mixed labor with it? Extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence.

[paleocrat]

It is awfully strange to equate one who has an attachment to their particular culture with one who hates other cultures. I

You are correct that racialism is separatism, but it does not, by any necessity, requires some absolute or comprehensive separatism. They work, play, neighbor, and befriend those of other races. Some do not, but to smear the entirety of them would be unwarranted.

"Dirty-womb." haha I knew some. Absurd notion. That, though, constitutes racism in my mind.

[paleocrat]

I don't reject responses. Let me see if (for some reason) it required me to accept it. If so, expect it up immediately.

NOTE: I already watching it.

[hurataimad]

whats the difference between racialism and racism?

[paleocrat]

A racialist would recognize the difference between races, with some wishing to preserve their own for the sake of their culture. This, in and of itself, doesn't constitute hate. Racism, on the other hand, would constitute a form of supremacy and, consequently, disdain for those outside the race.

I am neither. I'd prefer to call myself a culturist, and one who denies a necessary causal connection between race and culture. It is a matter of worldviews to me.

[imadhurata]

as a casual observer, if i'm allowed to render my own opinion, by your own definitions, it seems culturalism is a more subtle form of racialism............

but back to my question and your response, i would just like to say, thanks for your answer.

[paleocrat]

Not necessarily. Only if one places a causal connection between race and culture. I do not. Race is merely genetic. Culture, on the other hand, has to do with worldviews. These are epistemological.

My wife is a great example. She is racially Korean, but not culturally. No Korean language, foods, festivals, or even general religions or philosophies predominant there.

I hope this has helped.

[auamoti]

fortunately for anarchism, not everyone is so naive. you raise great points for those who actually are, and props to you.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Anarchy is collectivism. No fundamental difference between them and the communists, the fascists/nazis, and the Democratic Party.

[ChristiPhilosophique]

Absolutely brilliant videos Paleo, thank you so much for making it. It's great to see you making videos!

[brainpolice2]

Paleocrat is a member of the paleocon movement and he is a rabid nationalist. He's not worth taking seriously.

[paleocrat]

Ad hominem. Nice try.

Rabid nationalist? I am a Distributist. I am sympathetic to the views held by Pesch and Solidarism. This is a far cry from rabid nationalism. I promote a system where the Golden Mean between radical individualism and radical collectivism is upheld, acknowledging individuals, local communities, culture, and the common good.

This being said, if one were to judge you based upon your description of me and my views, you would not be worth taking seriously.

[brainpolice2]

Yea, right-wing nutjobs like you often try to sell themselves more moderately. But perhaps I was too harsh on you. You're a paleoconservative, okay. Paleoconservatism is still a nationalist ideology that favors protectionism and ridiculous traditionalist communitarianism.

[paleocrat]

OK, so you have no clue what Distributism. You are also evidently ignorant as to what Solidarism is. I may have things in common with paleoconservatives, but this doesn't warrant equivocation.

If by protectionism you mean that I wish to preserve local communities, decentralize Big Business, promote a political economy of distributive justice, and that I have an interest in preserving my neighbor's (local, state, national) job, then yes.

If you mean no foreign trade whatsoever, then no.

[brainpolice2]

I wasnt refering to your distributism. But from the little Ive inferred from it, distributism is a catholic-based advocacy for some kind of weird mixed economy model that involves protectionism. By protectionism I mean any kind of tarrifs, import quotas, immigration quotas, border enforcement, intellectual property law, anti-trust law, and so on.

[paleocrat]

You weren't referring to my being a distributist because you labeled me a paleoconservative and, consequently, a "rabid nationalist." You were wrong on both counts. Try to do more than infer.

"The little" you've "inferred." And I am supposed to take you serious?

Most distributists may say that tariffs, in certain circumstances, are preferable to the common good or advantageous to the preservation of small shops over Big Business.

Anti-Trust: Yes.

Quotas: Not all, but I support them.

[brainpolice2]

If you're really opposed to big buisiness, you'd oppose the state intervention that props it up. There can be no such thing as corporatism without the state.

[paleocrat]

You got two thumbs up for an unargued assertion???

I presume you are using "corporatism" to refer to Big Business running the show rather than the historical economic and political philosophy.

What is the "necessary" causal connection between the institution of the state and Big Business?

Why can't the institution of the state put in place a political economy that harbors an environment contrary to Big Business?

What evidence do you have that without the state there would be no Big Business?

[Pananarchist]

The debate over national-anarchism hasn't been about whether a group can define borders and enforce them, but whether the ideas put forward by NA are consistent with anarchism. No one is denying that it is possible for such arrangement of nationalism to come about or that anarchy may not be the only idea around. The problem is with using "anarchism" in a completely contradictory way.

[Pananarchist]

It's also possible to define and hold anarchist ethics without forcing those ethical views on others. If I hold that hierarchy is illegitimate and the people of a neighboring community accept hierarchy, it isn't necessary for me to impose my views on them. However, I can protect myself, property, and possessions from that neighboring hierarchical system and still be consistent with my ethics.

[Pananarchist]

The ability to secede and freely associate are pivotal in anarchism. If a community operates under a functioning syndicalist system and a group of individuals in that community want to secede and exchange what they produce in an open market system, they should be allowed to do so. Secession in anarchism would be allowed at any level, from groups of any size down to the individual. Even the most socialistic forms of anarchism would allow this secession if it was consistently anarchistic.

[shameoncanada]

I wonder if certain means of production would off limits for secession? Isn't it possible to imagine a situation where an individual or group would take with them something so crucial to the survival of the rest of the community that the community would become untenable? If this was the case wouldn't this person/group then have political power over the rest of the community through threat of secession?

[Pananarchist]

Yeah, I think this would probably be the case. I think Proudhon summed it up pretty well when he said that the amount of property a person can occupy should be "measured not by the will, but by the variable conditions of space and number." So, just because a person wants to occupy a piece of property doesn't make it legitimate. Scarcity has to be taken into account as well, or so it seems to me.

[shameoncanada]

Re violence it seems like you are conflating anarchism with pacifism. Take the issue of a racialist separatism where, as napalmtube pointed out, you will run inevitably into a situation where coercion will be necessary to maintain the ethnic purity of the community. The reason this is antithetical to anarchism and voluntarism is not because of the fact that violence is being employed, but because of fact that it discriminates against a person based on the arbitrary ...

[shameoncanada]

fact that they look/worship/love, etc... a certain way and therefor doesn't allow them the same anarchy it does others. Anarchy must be anarchy for all. So if instead you had an anarchist community where each person was treated as an equal there is no contradiction in then employing force to subdue a rapist. Any member of the community would be equally subdued in that situation. It is not the use of force that is antithetical to anarchism but just the illegitimate application of it.

[paleocrat]

I understand this very well. My point is that the anarchist normative ethic (a contradiction in terms), is arbitrary.

And who defines the legitimate application of force in an anarchist scheme? You? Me? The collective of anarchists? And on what authority is that definition binding on anyone else?

[Wilyam23]

Very good Paleo. What's up with the no hair though - looks a little anarchist! LOL

God bless

[napalmtube]

ah good video. I'll do a video response either tonight or tomorrow. btw I do believe in property rights, I'll explain it.