this is just more communist propaganda. Anarchy and the communism of marx are completely incompatible. Locke and Bastiat and Say are the true philosophers of the r3volution.
Anarchy is not incompatible with marxism as such. The ultimate goal of marxism is what some would call anarchism. However, Bakunins proposed way of achieving it (the anarchists way) couldn't differ more from Marx. Marxism is in short: seize the state, implement socialism, state whithers away. Bakunin and other classical anarchists said power is inherently corrupting and the most revolutionary individual will become part of the state if they seize it, no matter how good their intention
So Bakunin suggest overthrowing the state and capitalism, by various actions, none of which are aimed at seizing political power. That's the difference between marxism and anarchism. But I wouldn't call them completely incompatible, because the theoretical goal is the same: a stateless classless society with no private property in the means of production.
@Idol2011no, predicate logic doesn't apply to sociological, psychological or psychosocial truths. No legitimate political philosophy discussion can be undertaken without considering these realms of human study. Creating a just, equitable, balanced polity committed to human freedom is completely different from engineering a physical, electrical or mechanical system.
The work of Bakunin rest upon a hidden premisis that is obviously false. It can be formulted like this:
"Because all individuals in a society and what they contribute is a result of many/all the other individuals, then all individuals must own all contributions collectivily"
What happends here is that Balikun raises the price for each and every contribution to an equilibrium. Even no contribution is equally worth.
@Idol2011no i dont think you quite understand what Bakunin is advocating. he is merely advocating a system in which all people possess the same economic opportunities. of course there will be those who either cant work or choose not to. anarchism in general is more about the majority of people succeeding instead of those in a capitalist system who possess the means of production and that we all have to labor for (capitalists).
@megaminxmaster, you start by a claim about my understanding but you obviously feel no obligation to follow up such a claim with a reasonable argument. What you manage to do is to write nonsense that do not stand well to my text.
Next time I want to see predicate symbolics including a truth value to support your claim if you want to get an answer from an intelligent guy.
@aqueenowlbee Make a text video please, I would like to see your take on this. Perhaps we could have some type of intellectual discourse on these matters.
If human solidarity is a natural occurance and a natural law, then why do we need millions of pages of legislature and absolute government force to impose it on everyone? It's like saying leaves are green, but we are going to bend over backwards every single day and spend a huge amount of our time and labor in painting them green.
>Capitalism is the one that breeds unmotivated, uneducated, anti-social morons.
Except that historically capitalism has done quite the opposite. Only when the west started embracing socialistic and coporatist ideas did it begin it's fall.
wow. I've tried arguing with most fringe elements, but this? Anybody who is a collectivist of this scale I can't even bother. By their own admissin they're a facet to some strange invisible bond. I guess I'm so ingrained with individualism that it would be like arguing with a man convinced he's a poached egg. I am and you are: two separate statements. Either he's crazy or I am
He's basically saying that we are limited in our freedom and liberty to the extent that others are, and cannot experience liberty if others are denied it. Such a simple and wonderful concept. This is why I'm an anarchist.
@Adlasyn I did not mean my response to sound snarky. But I must agree with the observations of Aristotle and Smith, when a man sells his labor for a wage, he makes himself just about as stupid as a human can get.
@TooBoCu2008 I'm not trying to claim Adam Smith, but if you read the first few chapters of Wealth of Nations he says that the enormous differences in living standards between Britain and Africa (at his time) can be almost entirely put down to the division of labour. Division of labour is the basis for any even remotely productive economy. I also think the argument made by Adam Smith and Aristotle is a little fallacious, and hasn't been shown to be true through history.
@Adlasyn I read the whole Wealth of Nations, not just a few chapters. Yes, Smith did say that, but he also decried the division of labor as akin to holding a tiger by the tail. The dominant economy of the day will dominate their society and only through govt intervention can this be changed. he also said that wage labor will surely make a man into a dumb beast.
Smith also said that markets only work when those who make up that market enjoy perfect liberty.
@TooBoCu2008 Whether that is true or not (I do not believe so) - does it really matter? Is there a system that enslaves people less? The 'slavery' of the wage system is only 'slavery' in that one must find synergy with others to really achieve anything (in the case of wages - employers). The need for such synergy comes from resource scarcity, so really the 'slavery' of the wage system is just a result of 'slavery' of the natural environment which makes demands on our productive capacity.
@Adlasyn "Whether that is true or not (I do not believe so) - does it really matter?" Aside from refuting the point you made? Yes. Don't become a wage slave, you will make yourself stupid. In fact, just about as stupid as a human can get. Don't believe it? Have you held many wage jobs?
No, the slavery bit comes from the total control one gives to another when they sell their labor ie their bodies, to another human being.
Socialists are the best at executing justice. They can't seem to define justice but they are very good at executing it. Hitler, Stalin, Mao tortured and murdered tens of millions, all in the name of justice. But if they do know the definition of justice, shouldn't they share it with us? Wouldn't that be the just thing to do?
@whimywimp Hitler, Stalin and Mao were totalitarians, not socialists. The west calls them 'socialists' in order to defame socialism. They call themselves socialists in order to gain virtue by the connection. But both are untrue.
What you are saying, is that if I am not given everything by the collective, by the state, that I cannot be a moral being? How absurd. This is just as absurd as capitalism itself.
I grew up with Marxist Theories and read pretty much of his writings and must say yes,he was an authoritarian narcissist who hated workers and wanted them as means for a communist future society.He used every means to fight everyone who didn't follow his 1party dictatorship of the working class agendas,but despite of that,i have the same attitude with Bakunin on Marx,who still translated das Kapital into russian and honoured it throughout his life.
"But, that's the whole point of corporatization -- to try to remove the public from making decisions over their own fate, to limit the public arena, to control opinion, to make sure that the fundamental decisions that determine how the world is going to be run -- which includes production, commerce, distribution, thought, social policy, foreign policy, everything -- are not in the hands of the public, but rather in the hands of highly concentrated private power. In effect, tyranny." - NC
"Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both." Martin Luther King, jr. (who, I contend, would agree with Bakunin)
If it's voluntary, it is not coerced. People will always to choose to do things others think are detrimental or distasteful. The idea that anarchy is some uniform and conformist utopia is erroneous. No uniformity or conformity is possible in any human reality that is free of ceorcion. Anarchism is a code of ethics. Economics is irrelevant to it. Mercantilism depends on the state, as does Keynesian economics. Free market capitalism, by definition, is an economy the state does not influence.
I find that I always have to listen to Bakunins stuff a couple of times before I get it.
I find it utterly amazing how he logically, easily and dryly explains that all rich people are fucking criminals and that we have to do away with them.
I have no authority to compare Bakunin and Marx, but sometimes the 2 cents of an idiot helps:
I have heard about Marx probably since I was 11 or 12. I had teaachers who held him high.
I had NEVER heard of bakunin until I started looking for answers.
The prblm with Marx is that he´s commonly related to people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, haha come on, we just need to read half of a Marx´s writting to see that Marxism has nothing to do with XX century communism.
Of course Marx had some mistakes, i always think on a mix between marxism with anarchist bases, we can learn too much from the Kronstadt revolt, it was an excelent system, that Lenin destroyed.
I reccomend to compare marx and Bakunin with based info, Marx was much better..
Bakunin was a conspirator, he belonged to massonery, he associated with some of the worst and bloodiest revolutionaries, and he even wrote a letter to Russian Tsar before turning into an anarchist.
If Bakunin didn´t like some Marxist theory he called Marx ''authoritarian''
Bakunin said, ''you want to hold state, away with you, you´re not a revolutionary''
Don´t breake my balls, so Marx is not a revolutionary because this guy said it?
I reccomend ''bakunin on anarchy'' so you realize about.
@Mrgokueldestructor Woah wait he wrote a letter to the Russian Czar? Holy shit, that's crazy, kind of like me writing a letter to my "representative" or the President.
Besides liking anarchy, is sad that some people compares Bakunin to Marx, and calls Marx ''an authoritarian'' or ''a burgeoise idealist''
I´ve widely studied both theorists, and sincerely Bakunin´s like a child compared to Marx, he lacked every knowledge on class consciousness, economic and political factors for a revolution, the real concept of state, the real way to eliminate state, and since Bakunin ignored all this he found an easy way to cover his ignorance calling marx ''authoritarian''
Of course Anarchy has worked, and it has created some of the most beautiful revolutions, the maknovist Ukraine, Spain 1936, Kronstadt 1921, but, we can´t expect an anarchist revolution everywhere and everytime, because anarchy is something that needs for smart and conscious people to work, and as Anarchy worked very well on those specific places, in some others it´d be harder to take.
Of course i support anarchy, but i see it as a movement under construction, under constant development..
The only way to preserve diversity is through Respect,equality and the acceptance of other views in life as long as they respect my/our basic human needs(e.g. physical wealth,autonomy,social life etc.).
If a (especially hierarchical)religion,philosophy,economy or ideology propagates subjugation under their ideas,than everyone has his or her natural rights to defend themselves,either cumunism,catholicism,fascism,zionism or any other -ism(incl.AnarchISM),it's as"easy"as that.
@SuperOldschool1969 I am not an anarchist and even though I lean left I do not consider myself a socialist, I have to say, that is a beautiful quote. I've read some Bakunin in the past, and I do like what he has to say. He may not have been the scholar that Marx was, but the man was a poet and understood the importance of human freedom.
@SuperOldschool1969 This is stupid. Injustice will always exist and enslaving everyone because of it is about the dumbest solution one could propose. Socialism is slavery, any way you slice it. Slavery is injustice. There is no liberty in socialism. The system itself is built upon the institution of slavery, theft and violence.
Property rights are build on theft , slavery and violence. Land is life. Humans need land to live on and to harvest off. If you own land, you own human life. What gives you the right to deny other people access to land and resources?
Private property is slavery and violence, without any legitimacy.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH That's incredibly stupid. Based on what you just said there is no such thing as property and therefore no such thing as theft. You are incoherent as hell.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH For the same reason that other people do not have the right to use your body as they wish, because 1) resources are scarce and therefore will be contested as to their desired use, 2) without property rights, there is no way of deciding who gets to eat the banana or wear that pair of socks.100 people cannot.
Your reasoning results in absurdity, i.e. "what right do you have deny others access to having sex with you whenever they wish?"
Those are not philosophical bases of legitimacy, they are pragmatical reasons. There are pragmatical reasons for a lot of things that have no legitimacy (such as the government). I ask you to show me the legitimacy of owning land.
Comparing land to your body is ridiculous since no else can make a claim to live of your body (unless you are a cannibal). In fact, by owning land, you do own the life of other people, since they can only survive with land.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Because two people cannot build a house in the same place, nor occupy the same space.
Wrong again, government makes a claim on the body of its citizens all the time by telling them what they can do (prostitution), what they can eat (drugs) and what they can say (speech). It also controls labor through taxes.
And still wrong, most people DO NOT own land and yet they survive just fine. Where do you get these silly ideas?
Land is the most basic of things you need to survive. It gives you living space, provides you with food and water. Owning land is owning someone else's body.
Turning Anarchists RED one at a time. True autonomy is individualist and not collectivist. Collectivism=State, Individualism=true freedom. This is why most anarchist have problems with Marxists. THINK ABOUT IT. Think for yourself. Don't be brainwashed by the Marxists. Wher has Marxism worked? It hasn't because it its truly statist. Why do you disagree with Marxists, Anarchists?? Think about it! Stay true to liberty stay true to yourselves! PROUDHON!
The state is not collective. The state serves its own needs, the needs of a few people. e.g. A collective farm is owned by all the people, not a few people in power. Collectivism is incompatible with the state.
Individualism is not freedom. You are not an island unto yourself, you can not survive by yourself. Your absolute individual freedom will infringe on my freedom. Too much collectivism will also infringe on freedom. There exists a balance.
Proudhon joined the state. That would be treason to an anarchist who is proclaiming 'fuck the state'. Fuck Proudhon. Bakunin kicks his ass.
My favorite philosophical anarchist though, way before the term even existed, was Rousseau. He argued for some state in certain cases, but recognized the illegitimacy of the State, property rights etc. Also the most quotable character ever.
The way 2 understand&accept the truth,that we are all interconnected 2 1 another (hence the logic of equality according 2"what i don't want to happen in my life shall not happen to my fellow sentient beings too")goes by reconnecting 2 my individual needs,feelings&the differentiation between needs & their seemingly fullfilling(often compensational)strategies.We grew up n a way that we are dissociated&unconcious to our own feelings&needs.In this sense we still haven't found our individuality yet.
anarchy at this stage of human development is like leaving a house of 9 and 12 year olds with no babysitter. unless we grow, then we can live without law. but look at society, entertainment, music, etc. it's all dumbing people down so they DO NOT grow... i call it the culture of stupid
The debate of capitalism versus socialism has nothing to do with the debate between individualism and collectivism. Rather, it is a debate of whether our collectives are to be oligarchal (corporations and government bureaucracies) or democratic (trade unions and cooperatives).
Bakunin is absolutely right. I understand the fear of collectivism and the desire for individualism. In many ways, I consider myself an individualist. But, in the context of economic decision-making, individualism simply doesn't exist. All economies are based on collectivism; all economies are made up of different people working together in coordinated activities. Corporations are inherently collectivist institutions.
Many people need the coercive force of state to moderate their behaving on society.
But if you ask me if we can get rid fo state, i say yes we can, we need first equality, peace and respect, we need to create a consciousness on people that State is superfluous, we need to stop serving State´s symbols, burn our flags, stop singing anthems, and kill the political class.
But you can´t kill state with war, only with inteligence and a moral campaign against it.
Capitalism is less voluntary than socialism. It is wage slavery. Power rules, and having the strongest bully be democratically elected is optimal. There is no freer society than a democracy with strong civil liberties and constitutional protection of minorities.
You confuse terms a bit I think. Communism is a lack of class structure, though there are a variety of proposed ways to achieve it. Fascism is a nationalist, totalitarian dictatorship. The two are conflated by propaganda only.
@qwertypoiu4321 Chomsky is not a massive supporter of the State. He just realizes that you cannot just abolish the state and than think you have a free, egalitarian society. Abolishing the state right now, will lead to chaos because people are not informed nor ready for another society. And another question he asks himself is; how the hell do you abolish the state? No one knows. A violent way? The people don't want that. Abolishing the state is not a tactic
@goku1986007 I agree, but other problems arise. When you try to do it democraticly, the socialist party will always get corrupted and become a part of the system. You can see this in the European Social-Democratic parties. They can only obtain power in a democracy when they work together with other parties which means they will always have to let go of the radical ideas and plans. Another way is a dictatorship but that dictatorship will never let go of power, like history showed us.
@Corebyheart That´s why i don´t believe in political class or parties.
This can be only done with propaganda, with fights outside the political arena, convincing people, like Ghandi did for example, social disorder, civil disobedience.
We are the force that gives power to the state, if we don´t agree with the idea, if we change our minds, the world changes.
Competition in a political economy of a Market system of artificial scarcity that perpetuate the conditions of the wage slavery of immense humanity for the abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration is INSANE,NEGATIVE,DESTRUCTIVE,DEHUMANISING,DEVALUING,DISTORTING OF ALL LIVING VIBRATION. By sharing the Earth in cooperation for our common needs and well being we shall transcend and bring about a new paradigm of Oness negating the destructive legacy of CLASS,MONEY,STATE
bakunin's definition of freedom is philosophical existential idea of freedom. in other words, one that doesn't acctually matter. in reality, enough money or power will give you freedom from others
If money will give you freedom from others then you've substantiated Bakunin's point regarding the inherent elitism,regardless of class status,of capitalism & how that freedom is more a priviledge than a natural right.
Secondly,the existentialist doesn't believe that his individualism comes solely from the other(but his being reduced to an object does),not to mention that this other,in isolation,would even include any inanimate objects which are totally distinct from myself.
@thirdshift47 it's not elitism, it's wanting individual rights and sovereignty. only fools associate freedom from the oppression of others with elitism. in capitalism, freedom extends to everyone in the sense that they can pursue whatever form of living they want within the non respecter of ideologies that is free exchange and self interest. live on a commune, work a job or have your own business, all possible in capitalism. existentialism is pointless. it has no productive purpose
the key is to set up something so that one's energies aren't always spent maintaining that support, allowing one to devote one's energies entirely to growth and greater freedom
so we can take basic shit for granted and expand our awareness for the good of everyone.
It seems common for people to mask their voices when reading people like Bakunin. I really wish that they would rather put the effort in to make a quality audio recording.
Anarchism can only work with high level, highly functioning people. It will not work with the average ordinary idiots. It cannot work with unmotivated, uneducated morons. It is for intelligent, friendly, social, moral, competent individuals. People who have good social skills and the ability to innovate. The capitalistic system is better for the average dummy who needs to be told what to do. Capitalism is good for the slave. Capitalism is good for antisocial people
@jesselakerr Where are these high-functioners in actual anarchist successes. Ordinary workers organized and participated in the collectives in Anarchist Spain. Ordinary people work in Mondragon. Ordinary factory workers occupied FaSinPat and its 200 or so sisters in Argentina. Ordinary Brazilians make up the Landless Workers' Movement. Ordinary Africans make up Abahlali baseMjondolo, and ordinary Mexicans formed the EZLN.
@QuatFax As long as we see it under very hard economical & social circumstances like e.g.in Spain in the 19th century & up to 1936,you're right;but this doesn't work in the conveniancefood&distractionculture of highcapitalist societies like northamerica,Europe,Japan etc. It's important to develop selfreflected social and ethical skills to be able to bear equality in times someone else has a different opinion about ones own religiously kept attitude.
@agnostoatomo Why shouldn't it be able to work in "high capitalist" economies? Worker cooperatives and the like continue to exist in such places. Spain, France, and Italy continue to have large and growing worker coop movements even though they are now wealthy first-world countries. And many others (Canada, Japan, United States) are beginning to develop similar movements.
@QuatFax I can say something about Europe where i'm lucky 2 see that there are some movements...but large?
According 2 how workers used 2 be organized in the late 19th cent. up 2 the 20's last cent. it's ridiculous nowadays.
I assume that most Workers in Europe are pretty aware of the shit around them&the sell out of their Economies 4 the sake of a bunch of A**holes but they are 2 fearsome 4 a true change&their loss of convenience.
@agnostoatomo There are very large-scale organizations of that kind in Europe. There are very large labor union federations, which have even organized across-borders and asist each other in strikes. There are also huge cooperative federations (such as the Cooperative Group in the UK, with 5 million members). Popular democracy can very much be practiced on a large scale.
@jesselakerr The same was said in times of absolutism about socalled "Democracy" & it's parlamentarian statism.Capitalism was a more civilian step in2 the hierarchy of propertarians(along with their extremists,the socalled Anarcocapitalists),bringing down the aristocratical hypocricy.I think your still right about Anarchism in the first 2 Generations,but s soon s it becomes a cultural mainstream & people grow up with it,there's a chance 4 Evolution in2 Anarchy through direct Democracy.
@jesselakerr I disagree that people necessarily need to be "educated," if being educated means in the Western sense of going through 12+ years of sitting in a room thinking about abstract ideas that are really only preparing one to be a functioning tool of corporations and the mass media. I'm a compassionate humanist because I've reasoned it out from reading many books, but many societies have more reliably nurtured the same tendencies by other cultural means. It's a structural problem.
@Mabuza14 they are educated trust me, just in a capitalist way. i go to a bloody capitalist institution (which seems more like a money making corporation to me) and they 'learn' how to pass tests.
not free thought, not moral.
in fact, with uniforms, freedom of expression is pretty much banned too.
@Mabuza14 yes. how does that make one lazy? Most of the social issues in poor neighborhoods I've seen all sprout from family breakdown,lack of local business,disdain for education(which was poor anyways), ignorance of financial planning, and gang prevalence due to drug profitability and the family breakdown.
If anything the people are led to complacency by the local culture without knowing it and then deliberately stay that way as they grow. these are capable people but what stops them?
@Mabuza14 yes, i do right now. i ve always been poor. so why are you and i different. why do you think a certain way and i another? why are you a socialist and me a capitalist? can we have a civil debate?
@aqueenowlbee I don't know you seem like an annoying kid who just wants to have debates on the internet all day because they're bored and have no life. You're not a capitalist if you're a worker FYI...
"You're not a capitalist if you're a worker FYI..."
That is NOT true. A capitalist is someone who ideologically agrees with capitalism. It is not necessarily only someone of invested wealth, or someone who sells products or services for profit.
Who are the poor to lower working class of citizens voting in elected officials, then?
If you vote in the elections you are a CAPITALIST because you support U.S. CAPITALISM.
i meant that towards the two headed monster, not perhaps a true "libertarian" or etc vote. "libertarian" not meaning the modern american definition. you missed the point, or perhaps if took you out of context, my bad....I dunno, just responding to that post you made. The point was that 99.4% of Americans are invested in some type of capitalistic ideals. Surely there are a few true communist and socialist who 100% reject it, but hardly any..including myself
@jesselakerr are you "educated" enough to know that Bakunin and other early anarchists were anti-semite? In fact Bakunin and Proudhon probably hated jews as much as Hitler did. Not only that, but Proudhon saw differences between blacks and whites: "Anti-semitism, always and everywhere, the acid test of racialism, with its division of mankind into creative and sterile races, led Proudhon to regard the Negro as the lowest in the racial hierarchy."
@Vulturu [...] The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralisation of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found."
@SuperOldschool1969 and, a Bakunin quote: This whole Jewish world, comprising a single exploiting sect, a kind of blood sucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite, going beyond not only the frontiers of states, but of political opinion, this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other... This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank?
@Vulturu We don't need to expect Bakunin as being a pure,holy man who was 100% perfect in every aspect of his life.He was a child of his time,society,education & he was lacking some differentiation.Maybe in a few decades Anarchists will criticize every todays Anarchist who is not vegan!
I love many writings of Proudhon & Bakunin and disagree with certain positions of both(Proudhon was sexistic in some respect),without dismissing the basic attitude of Anarchy those guys showed in their lives.
@agnostoatomo well 99.99% of "modern" anarchists claim that anarchism is 100% anti-racist and anti-fascist, while the very first self-proclaimed anarchist claims that black slavery was not all that wrong and blame it on the jews. if you can tolerate this kind of rhetoric why not tolerate nationalism wich is less acid? if a modern politcian said anything like it you would like to shove petrol bombs up his ass, but you say bakunin and proudhon are great men.
1st reread my comment and learn the meaning of the word differentiation,2nd.Where did you read that about black slavery(Text and filenumber),i haven't heard of that.3rd:Bakunin understood the word differentiation because he had jews among his friends(he was more against capitalistic jewish internationalists),but i criticize his attitude on jews.4th:Bomb throwers are anomists not Anarchists,even if they call themselves so.Nationalism is the fertile ground for racism and of course fascism too.
@agnostoatomo i see nothing wrong admitting differences between races (racism). i think racial supremacists are totally wrong, but if we want to preserve global diversity of races and cultures we must segregate. the best way of doing that is through nationalism.
@Vulturu You won't find a single documented society in the past that developed themselves without the ability to integrate and assimilate! every higher language on this earth is a product of assimilation of words from other cultures,either greek,latin,chinese,spanish,german or nowadays english.There is no monolitical diversity that ever permanently existed,except in some desert or jungle areas in Africa,Southamerica or Africa,where a few small cultures have merely survived.
@agnostoatomo totally agree with that. just influences have to be limited. unlimited immigration and culture-mixing will result in societies and so-called cultures like the american "culture". u.s.a. is the perfect example of what will happen if you mix together many cultures. all are lost in favor of a single sub-culture, lowering population IQ to room temperature. pseudo-patriotism makes thing more ridiculous. one thing scares me about america though: it's ability to destroy other cultures.
@Vulturu In the case America vs. world i can see only 1 authentic step forward for the different world societies & that's the reconnection of the individual 2 his/her authentic feelings in accordance 2 the lack of need that stands behind it.That means 2 dismiss other agendas & their thinking patterns in 1s own mind & become social beings instead of mass cattle running after a "flag".If we could support each other 2 manage that,we would meet on same eyelevel & cooperate out of a healthy egoism.
Bakunin has the most annoying voice.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 week ago
Wow this seven year old martian has quite the vocabulary.
ronwandell 2 weeks ago in playlist Voluntarism
this is just more communist propaganda. Anarchy and the communism of marx are completely incompatible. Locke and Bastiat and Say are the true philosophers of the r3volution.
gluci33 2 weeks ago
@gluci33 Bakunin was not a marxist he was critical of marxism.
He was a socialist though.
Eopyk 2 weeks ago
@gluci33
Anarchy is not incompatible with marxism as such. The ultimate goal of marxism is what some would call anarchism. However, Bakunins proposed way of achieving it (the anarchists way) couldn't differ more from Marx. Marxism is in short: seize the state, implement socialism, state whithers away. Bakunin and other classical anarchists said power is inherently corrupting and the most revolutionary individual will become part of the state if they seize it, no matter how good their intention
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 week ago
@gluci33
So Bakunin suggest overthrowing the state and capitalism, by various actions, none of which are aimed at seizing political power. That's the difference between marxism and anarchism. But I wouldn't call them completely incompatible, because the theoretical goal is the same: a stateless classless society with no private property in the means of production.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 week ago
I really tried to listen to this, but that voice is too aggravating and cadence too choppy until I gave up trying about half way through.
JaneCochran 3 weeks ago
Bakunin was a SOCIAL (A)
SiouxSyndicate 3 weeks ago
@Idol2011no, predicate logic doesn't apply to sociological, psychological or psychosocial truths. No legitimate political philosophy discussion can be undertaken without considering these realms of human study. Creating a just, equitable, balanced polity committed to human freedom is completely different from engineering a physical, electrical or mechanical system.
transcend7782 4 weeks ago
What's up with the helium voice on this video?
CosmicFork 4 weeks ago
Individualist Anarchism is not the same as Anarcho-Capitalism.
veritasunleashed 1 month ago 5
in what text can this be found?
unipunkle 1 month ago
The work of Bakunin rest upon a hidden premisis that is obviously false. It can be formulted like this:
"Because all individuals in a society and what they contribute is a result of many/all the other individuals, then all individuals must own all contributions collectivily"
What happends here is that Balikun raises the price for each and every contribution to an equilibrium. Even no contribution is equally worth.
Thus, he is assuming what he wants to prove.
Bakunin is a "clever", dumb fuck.
Idol2011no 1 month ago
@Idol2011no i dont think you quite understand what Bakunin is advocating. he is merely advocating a system in which all people possess the same economic opportunities. of course there will be those who either cant work or choose not to. anarchism in general is more about the majority of people succeeding instead of those in a capitalist system who possess the means of production and that we all have to labor for (capitalists).
megaminxmaster 1 month ago
@megaminxmaster, you start by a claim about my understanding but you obviously feel no obligation to follow up such a claim with a reasonable argument. What you manage to do is to write nonsense that do not stand well to my text.
Next time I want to see predicate symbolics including a truth value to support your claim if you want to get an answer from an intelligent guy.
Idol2011no 1 month ago
This is what I mean when I say you arent an anarchist. You equate individualism with capitalism. Youre a sack of shit.
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago
CAROL ANNE, COME TOWARDS THE LIGHT
htiberian 2 months ago
why the helium voice? its quite distracting.
khoroshoorange 2 months ago
whoa is this a witch from willow?
lionneedshistiger 2 months ago
I always knew Zelda Rubenstein was an anarchist…
MrSpemat 3 months ago 2
@MrSpemat
Wicked Witch of the West
PositivelyBored 3 months ago
if only i had a camera. do people really fall for this mockery of intellect?
aqueenowlbee 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aqueenowlbee all the time, look at the current state of government.
LordShandor 5 months ago
@aqueenowlbee Make a text video please, I would like to see your take on this. Perhaps we could have some type of intellectual discourse on these matters.
XxAmericanLedxX 5 months ago
@XxAmericanLedxX i will talk to you soon. im having health problemms right now. but i would love to.
aqueenowlbee 4 months ago
@aqueenowlbee Oh feel better then!
XxAmericanLedxX 4 months ago
human solidarity? here is the condition for that. the weak cling to the strong. any other questions?
aqueenowlbee 5 months ago
Why the hell is the audio so terrible?
TheEthanwashere 5 months ago
Bakunin is pro-terrorist and pro state. But he doesnt know it...
unclesamfatg 6 months ago
@unclesamfatg He's dead too and doesnt know that either.
MENJAGVETJUINTE 6 months ago
If human solidarity is a natural occurance and a natural law, then why do we need millions of pages of legislature and absolute government force to impose it on everyone? It's like saying leaves are green, but we are going to bend over backwards every single day and spend a huge amount of our time and labor in painting them green.
jccusell 6 months ago
@jccusell Who said that is was a "natural law"?
ryan84160 6 months ago
lmao! This sounds just like the old lady from "Poltergeist"! Yeah, 1982 movie, but a cult classic, I think.
metalfemme131313 7 months ago
I always newed tha alvin was an anarchist :0
Zvaigzne000DC 9 months ago
a fantastic excerpt, but please, find a better voice program to record these. this is impossible to listen to.
truthslap 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mabuza14
>Capitalism is the one that breeds unmotivated, uneducated, anti-social morons.
Except that historically capitalism has done quite the opposite. Only when the west started embracing socialistic and coporatist ideas did it begin it's fall.
Boonamal 10 months ago
Could someone post which of Bakunin's works this is taken from?
SiegeOfSelf 10 months ago
wow. I've tried arguing with most fringe elements, but this? Anybody who is a collectivist of this scale I can't even bother. By their own admissin they're a facet to some strange invisible bond. I guess I'm so ingrained with individualism that it would be like arguing with a man convinced he's a poached egg. I am and you are: two separate statements. Either he's crazy or I am
ThePythagoran 10 months ago
He's basically saying that we are limited in our freedom and liberty to the extent that others are, and cannot experience liberty if others are denied it. Such a simple and wonderful concept. This is why I'm an anarchist.
DemilichFan 11 months ago
@DemilichFan
Me too. Bakunin's criticisms of Marx were right on the money.
mojorhythm 10 months ago
This is a strawman argument. "Individualism" does not mean isolation, it means peaceful, voluntary interaction without being owned by the colletive.
Adlasyn 11 months ago
@Adlasyn Being owned by one man or three shareholders is no different to the life of the slave.
TooBoCu2008 10 months ago
@TooBoCu2008 You are not owned by who you are employed to.
Adlasyn 10 months ago
Comment removed
TooBoCu2008 10 months ago
@Adlasyn I did not mean my response to sound snarky. But I must agree with the observations of Aristotle and Smith, when a man sells his labor for a wage, he makes himself just about as stupid as a human can get.
TooBoCu2008 10 months ago
@TooBoCu2008 I'm not trying to claim Adam Smith, but if you read the first few chapters of Wealth of Nations he says that the enormous differences in living standards between Britain and Africa (at his time) can be almost entirely put down to the division of labour. Division of labour is the basis for any even remotely productive economy. I also think the argument made by Adam Smith and Aristotle is a little fallacious, and hasn't been shown to be true through history.
Adlasyn 10 months ago
@Adlasyn I read the whole Wealth of Nations, not just a few chapters. Yes, Smith did say that, but he also decried the division of labor as akin to holding a tiger by the tail. The dominant economy of the day will dominate their society and only through govt intervention can this be changed. he also said that wage labor will surely make a man into a dumb beast.
Smith also said that markets only work when those who make up that market enjoy perfect liberty.
TooBoCu2008 10 months ago
@TooBoCu2008 Whether that is true or not (I do not believe so) - does it really matter? Is there a system that enslaves people less? The 'slavery' of the wage system is only 'slavery' in that one must find synergy with others to really achieve anything (in the case of wages - employers). The need for such synergy comes from resource scarcity, so really the 'slavery' of the wage system is just a result of 'slavery' of the natural environment which makes demands on our productive capacity.
Adlasyn 10 months ago
@Adlasyn "Whether that is true or not (I do not believe so) - does it really matter?" Aside from refuting the point you made? Yes. Don't become a wage slave, you will make yourself stupid. In fact, just about as stupid as a human can get. Don't believe it? Have you held many wage jobs?
No, the slavery bit comes from the total control one gives to another when they sell their labor ie their bodies, to another human being.
TooBoCu2008 10 months ago
@Adlasyn
But why sell them your time? It's a most precious commodity.
Jcolinsol 10 months ago
Socialists are the best at executing justice. They can't seem to define justice but they are very good at executing it. Hitler, Stalin, Mao tortured and murdered tens of millions, all in the name of justice. But if they do know the definition of justice, shouldn't they share it with us? Wouldn't that be the just thing to do?
whimywimp 11 months ago
@whimywimp Mfw "Hilter = Socialist" i832 . photobucket . com/ albums /zz249 /zibzib200/ HA_HA_HA_OH_WOW . jpg
cogar48 11 months ago
@whimywimp Hitler, Stalin and Mao were totalitarians, not socialists. The west calls them 'socialists' in order to defame socialism. They call themselves socialists in order to gain virtue by the connection. But both are untrue.
TooBoCu2008 10 months ago
What a horrible voice. This makes the video impossible to listen.
StarkOfWinterfell 11 months ago
What you are saying, is that if I am not given everything by the collective, by the state, that I cannot be a moral being? How absurd. This is just as absurd as capitalism itself.
JasonDamisch 11 months ago
I grew up with Marxist Theories and read pretty much of his writings and must say yes,he was an authoritarian narcissist who hated workers and wanted them as means for a communist future society.He used every means to fight everyone who didn't follow his 1party dictatorship of the working class agendas,but despite of that,i have the same attitude with Bakunin on Marx,who still translated das Kapital into russian and honoured it throughout his life.
agnostoatomo 11 months ago
"But, that's the whole point of corporatization -- to try to remove the public from making decisions over their own fate, to limit the public arena, to control opinion, to make sure that the fundamental decisions that determine how the world is going to be run -- which includes production, commerce, distribution, thought, social policy, foreign policy, everything -- are not in the hands of the public, but rather in the hands of highly concentrated private power. In effect, tyranny." - NC
wgilroy 11 months ago
"Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both." Martin Luther King, jr. (who, I contend, would agree with Bakunin)
wgilroy 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People will always choose to*
ProIndividual 1 year ago
If it's voluntary, it is not coerced. People will always to choose to do things others think are detrimental or distasteful. The idea that anarchy is some uniform and conformist utopia is erroneous. No uniformity or conformity is possible in any human reality that is free of ceorcion. Anarchism is a code of ethics. Economics is irrelevant to it. Mercantilism depends on the state, as does Keynesian economics. Free market capitalism, by definition, is an economy the state does not influence.
ProIndividual 1 year ago
I find that I always have to listen to Bakunins stuff a couple of times before I get it.
I find it utterly amazing how he logically, easily and dryly explains that all rich people are fucking criminals and that we have to do away with them.
I have no authority to compare Bakunin and Marx, but sometimes the 2 cents of an idiot helps:
I have heard about Marx probably since I was 11 or 12. I had teaachers who held him high.
I had NEVER heard of bakunin until I started looking for answers.
DJpopel 1 year ago
The prblm with Marx is that he´s commonly related to people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, haha come on, we just need to read half of a Marx´s writting to see that Marxism has nothing to do with XX century communism.
Of course Marx had some mistakes, i always think on a mix between marxism with anarchist bases, we can learn too much from the Kronstadt revolt, it was an excelent system, that Lenin destroyed.
I reccomend to compare marx and Bakunin with based info, Marx was much better..
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
even escobar comes under the rebellious slave label somehow.
willappleton 1 year ago
Bakunin was a conspirator, he belonged to massonery, he associated with some of the worst and bloodiest revolutionaries, and he even wrote a letter to Russian Tsar before turning into an anarchist.
If Bakunin didn´t like some Marxist theory he called Marx ''authoritarian''
Bakunin said, ''you want to hold state, away with you, you´re not a revolutionary''
Don´t breake my balls, so Marx is not a revolutionary because this guy said it?
I reccomend ''bakunin on anarchy'' so you realize about.
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
@Mrgokueldestructor Woah wait he wrote a letter to the Russian Czar? Holy shit, that's crazy, kind of like me writing a letter to my "representative" or the President.
Mabuza14 1 year ago
Besides liking anarchy, is sad that some people compares Bakunin to Marx, and calls Marx ''an authoritarian'' or ''a burgeoise idealist''
I´ve widely studied both theorists, and sincerely Bakunin´s like a child compared to Marx, he lacked every knowledge on class consciousness, economic and political factors for a revolution, the real concept of state, the real way to eliminate state, and since Bakunin ignored all this he found an easy way to cover his ignorance calling marx ''authoritarian''
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
Of course Anarchy has worked, and it has created some of the most beautiful revolutions, the maknovist Ukraine, Spain 1936, Kronstadt 1921, but, we can´t expect an anarchist revolution everywhere and everytime, because anarchy is something that needs for smart and conscious people to work, and as Anarchy worked very well on those specific places, in some others it´d be harder to take.
Of course i support anarchy, but i see it as a movement under construction, under constant development..
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
@jesselakerr- You really should read some Kropotkin!
Bosshammer64 1 year ago
The only way to preserve diversity is through Respect,equality and the acceptance of other views in life as long as they respect my/our basic human needs(e.g. physical wealth,autonomy,social life etc.).
If a (especially hierarchical)religion,philosophy,economy or ideology propagates subjugation under their ideas,than everyone has his or her natural rights to defend themselves,either cumunism,catholicism,fascism,zionism or any other -ism(incl.AnarchISM),it's as"easy"as that.
agnostoatomo 1 year ago
"Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin
SuperOldschool1969 1 year ago 33
@SuperOldschool1969 I am not an anarchist and even though I lean left I do not consider myself a socialist, I have to say, that is a beautiful quote. I've read some Bakunin in the past, and I do like what he has to say. He may not have been the scholar that Marx was, but the man was a poet and understood the importance of human freedom.
gnomechomskylives 1 year ago
@SuperOldschool1969 Socialism + Liberty = Mikhail Bakunin's wish. LETS DO THIS!
migeezel 8 months ago
@SuperOldschool1969 "another word for socialism; revenge." - aqueenowlbee
aqueenowlbee 5 months ago 3
@aqueenowlbee you mean jealousy
LordShandor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperOldschool1969 This is stupid. Injustice will always exist and enslaving everyone because of it is about the dumbest solution one could propose. Socialism is slavery, any way you slice it. Slavery is injustice. There is no liberty in socialism. The system itself is built upon the institution of slavery, theft and violence.
LordShandor 5 months ago
@LordShandor
How is anarcho-socialism slavery?
Property rights are build on theft , slavery and violence. Land is life. Humans need land to live on and to harvest off. If you own land, you own human life. What gives you the right to deny other people access to land and resources?
Private property is slavery and violence, without any legitimacy.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 week ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH That's incredibly stupid. Based on what you just said there is no such thing as property and therefore no such thing as theft. You are incoherent as hell.
LordShandor 1 week ago
@LordShandor
Theft as in deprivation. I ask you:
What give you the right to own land, aka, to deny others access to land and resources?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 week ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH For the same reason that other people do not have the right to use your body as they wish, because 1) resources are scarce and therefore will be contested as to their desired use, 2) without property rights, there is no way of deciding who gets to eat the banana or wear that pair of socks.100 people cannot.
Your reasoning results in absurdity, i.e. "what right do you have deny others access to having sex with you whenever they wish?"
LordShandor 1 week ago
@LordShandor
Those are not philosophical bases of legitimacy, they are pragmatical reasons. There are pragmatical reasons for a lot of things that have no legitimacy (such as the government). I ask you to show me the legitimacy of owning land.
Comparing land to your body is ridiculous since no else can make a claim to live of your body (unless you are a cannibal). In fact, by owning land, you do own the life of other people, since they can only survive with land.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 week ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Because two people cannot build a house in the same place, nor occupy the same space.
Wrong again, government makes a claim on the body of its citizens all the time by telling them what they can do (prostitution), what they can eat (drugs) and what they can say (speech). It also controls labor through taxes.
And still wrong, most people DO NOT own land and yet they survive just fine. Where do you get these silly ideas?
LordShandor 1 week ago
@LordShandor
Land is the most basic of things you need to survive. It gives you living space, provides you with food and water. Owning land is owning someone else's body.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 week ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Nonsense, there is more land than there are people.
LordShandor 1 week ago
@SuperOldschool1969 DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!
303Miles 4 months ago
Comment removed
303Miles 4 months ago
Turning Anarchists RED one at a time. True autonomy is individualist and not collectivist. Collectivism=State, Individualism=true freedom. This is why most anarchist have problems with Marxists. THINK ABOUT IT. Think for yourself. Don't be brainwashed by the Marxists. Wher has Marxism worked? It hasn't because it its truly statist. Why do you disagree with Marxists, Anarchists?? Think about it! Stay true to liberty stay true to yourselves! PROUDHON!
303Miles 4 months ago
@303Miles
The state is not collective. The state serves its own needs, the needs of a few people. e.g. A collective farm is owned by all the people, not a few people in power. Collectivism is incompatible with the state.
Individualism is not freedom. You are not an island unto yourself, you can not survive by yourself. Your absolute individual freedom will infringe on my freedom. Too much collectivism will also infringe on freedom. There exists a balance.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 week ago
@303Miles
Proudhon joined the state. That would be treason to an anarchist who is proclaiming 'fuck the state'. Fuck Proudhon. Bakunin kicks his ass.
My favorite philosophical anarchist though, way before the term even existed, was Rousseau. He argued for some state in certain cases, but recognized the illegitimacy of the State, property rights etc. Also the most quotable character ever.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 week ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH If you aren't committing treason in this time frame, you aren't for liberty.
LordShandor 1 week ago
The way 2 understand&accept the truth,that we are all interconnected 2 1 another (hence the logic of equality according 2"what i don't want to happen in my life shall not happen to my fellow sentient beings too")goes by reconnecting 2 my individual needs,feelings&the differentiation between needs & their seemingly fullfilling(often compensational)strategies.We grew up n a way that we are dissociated&unconcious to our own feelings&needs.In this sense we still haven't found our individuality yet.
agnostoatomo 1 year ago
'Cross over, children. All are welcome. All welcome, go into the light...There is peace and serenity in the light.'
'This house is clean.'
xlunax86 1 year ago
anarchy at this stage of human development is like leaving a house of 9 and 12 year olds with no babysitter. unless we grow, then we can live without law. but look at society, entertainment, music, etc. it's all dumbing people down so they DO NOT grow... i call it the culture of stupid
mintatious 1 year ago
The debate of capitalism versus socialism has nothing to do with the debate between individualism and collectivism. Rather, it is a debate of whether our collectives are to be oligarchal (corporations and government bureaucracies) or democratic (trade unions and cooperatives).
QuatFax 1 year ago
Bakunin is absolutely right. I understand the fear of collectivism and the desire for individualism. In many ways, I consider myself an individualist. But, in the context of economic decision-making, individualism simply doesn't exist. All economies are based on collectivism; all economies are made up of different people working together in coordinated activities. Corporations are inherently collectivist institutions.
QuatFax 1 year ago
It's Zelda Rubenstein!!!
HerrSpieldose 1 year ago
man, i cant even fucking listen to what is being said because the voice is incredible annoying. can you please repost this with a nonannoying voice?
adiosucks123 1 year ago
well fuck these losers the voice is cool and trippy
bobsdadsbird 1 year ago
Many people need the coercive force of state to moderate their behaving on society.
But if you ask me if we can get rid fo state, i say yes we can, we need first equality, peace and respect, we need to create a consciousness on people that State is superfluous, we need to stop serving State´s symbols, burn our flags, stop singing anthems, and kill the political class.
But you can´t kill state with war, only with inteligence and a moral campaign against it.
goku1986007 1 year ago
Capitalism is less voluntary than socialism. It is wage slavery. Power rules, and having the strongest bully be democratically elected is optimal. There is no freer society than a democracy with strong civil liberties and constitutional protection of minorities.
You confuse terms a bit I think. Communism is a lack of class structure, though there are a variety of proposed ways to achieve it. Fascism is a nationalist, totalitarian dictatorship. The two are conflated by propaganda only.
darkmiles22 1 year ago
Chomsky 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
@qwertypoiu4321 Chomsky is not a massive supporter of the State. He just realizes that you cannot just abolish the state and than think you have a free, egalitarian society. Abolishing the state right now, will lead to chaos because people are not informed nor ready for another society. And another question he asks himself is; how the hell do you abolish the state? No one knows. A violent way? The people don't want that. Abolishing the state is not a tactic
Corebyheart 1 year ago
@Corebyheart
See i´m not a devotee of state, actually i think flags and anthems are cult for state.
But that´s just what i´ve been thinking, i mix some anarchist and socialist ideas, and that´s right, you can´t just disappear State.
I think there needs to be a democratic and socialist way to gradually get rid of state, abolishing would create caos right now.
You can´t just have the State killed because unfortunately people have got used to it, and right now most of them need a coercive.
goku1986007 1 year ago
@goku1986007 I agree, but other problems arise. When you try to do it democraticly, the socialist party will always get corrupted and become a part of the system. You can see this in the European Social-Democratic parties. They can only obtain power in a democracy when they work together with other parties which means they will always have to let go of the radical ideas and plans. Another way is a dictatorship but that dictatorship will never let go of power, like history showed us.
Corebyheart 1 year ago
@Corebyheart That´s why i don´t believe in political class or parties.
This can be only done with propaganda, with fights outside the political arena, convincing people, like Ghandi did for example, social disorder, civil disobedience.
We are the force that gives power to the state, if we don´t agree with the idea, if we change our minds, the world changes.
But that´s hard, we have a lot of work to do...
goku1986007 1 year ago
Edifying content but stupid delivery.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Competition in a political economy of a Market system of artificial scarcity that perpetuate the conditions of the wage slavery of immense humanity for the abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration is INSANE,NEGATIVE,DESTRUCTIVE,DEHUMANISING,DEVALUING,DISTORTING OF ALL LIVING VIBRATION. By sharing the Earth in cooperation for our common needs and well being we shall transcend and bring about a new paradigm of Oness negating the destructive legacy of CLASS,MONEY,STATE
arzoyan 1 year ago
"He only shakes off the yoke of internal nature through collective or social labor" bullshit
dubified89 1 year ago
Why is internal nature bad? These are people who can't stand on their own two as individuals in the world.
dubified89 1 year ago
in my opinion
dubified89 1 year ago
Comment removed
katzunjammer 1 year ago
Freedom is so terrible, eh? How about I enslave you?
razerfish 1 year ago
bakunin's definition of freedom is philosophical existential idea of freedom. in other words, one that doesn't acctually matter. in reality, enough money or power will give you freedom from others
chrispollock 1 year ago
@chrispollock
If money will give you freedom from others then you've substantiated Bakunin's point regarding the inherent elitism,regardless of class status,of capitalism & how that freedom is more a priviledge than a natural right.
Secondly,the existentialist doesn't believe that his individualism comes solely from the other(but his being reduced to an object does),not to mention that this other,in isolation,would even include any inanimate objects which are totally distinct from myself.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 it's not elitism, it's wanting individual rights and sovereignty. only fools associate freedom from the oppression of others with elitism. in capitalism, freedom extends to everyone in the sense that they can pursue whatever form of living they want within the non respecter of ideologies that is free exchange and self interest. live on a commune, work a job or have your own business, all possible in capitalism. existentialism is pointless. it has no productive purpose
chrispollock 1 year ago
we represent, the lollipop collective!
centerrightpunk 1 year ago
"clear your minds, it know what scares you, it has since the very beginning"
HerrSpieldose 1 year ago
very good despite the voice
no man is an island
we're free to the extent that we are supported
we're all dependent on the world around us
the key is to set up something so that one's energies aren't always spent maintaining that support, allowing one to devote one's energies entirely to growth and greater freedom
so we can take basic shit for granted and expand our awareness for the good of everyone.
basic shit for granted=welfare=socialism
freedom/growth= libertarianism
social libertarianism
natmanprime 1 year ago
In the next video does he say "I"m ba-aaack!"
bapyou 1 year ago
Sounds like the old lady in Poltergeist. Too annoying to listen to.
xprotestorx 1 year ago
socialists make a poor show of anarchy.
Libertarians have the moral highground
razoorsharp 1 year ago
Bakunin is a member of the lollipop guild, right?
Is his goal to welcome us to Munchkin Land?
caltrop69 1 year ago
why does Bakunin sound like the scary little lady from the poltergeist movies?
Benjamin42079 1 year ago
isn't this that short lady from Poltergeist!!!! Carol ANN!!!
MrSpieldose 1 year ago
@MrSpieldose It's the chick from Southland Tales, "With a bang!".
dalejrfan800 1 year ago
You should really consider rerecording this. It would be greatly appreciated.
discordian420 1 year ago
Annoying.
anarchistory 1 year ago
It seems common for people to mask their voices when reading people like Bakunin. I really wish that they would rather put the effort in to make a quality audio recording.
libertyandjustice 1 year ago
Bakunintoxicated.
adjohnson916 1 year ago 2
Anarchism can only work with high level, highly functioning people. It will not work with the average ordinary idiots. It cannot work with unmotivated, uneducated morons. It is for intelligent, friendly, social, moral, competent individuals. People who have good social skills and the ability to innovate. The capitalistic system is better for the average dummy who needs to be told what to do. Capitalism is good for the slave. Capitalism is good for antisocial people
jesselakerr 1 year ago 16
capitalism creates antisocial people...
azapada 1 year ago 4
@azapada How?
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@jesselakerr So all your requirements are subjective yet receive a thumbs up. Congrats, you managed to manipulate people.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@jesselakerr Where are these high-functioners in actual anarchist successes. Ordinary workers organized and participated in the collectives in Anarchist Spain. Ordinary people work in Mondragon. Ordinary factory workers occupied FaSinPat and its 200 or so sisters in Argentina. Ordinary Brazilians make up the Landless Workers' Movement. Ordinary Africans make up Abahlali baseMjondolo, and ordinary Mexicans formed the EZLN.
Anarchy works for the common man.
QuatFax 1 year ago 3
@QuatFax As long as we see it under very hard economical & social circumstances like e.g.in Spain in the 19th century & up to 1936,you're right;but this doesn't work in the conveniancefood&distractionculture of highcapitalist societies like northamerica,Europe,Japan etc. It's important to develop selfreflected social and ethical skills to be able to bear equality in times someone else has a different opinion about ones own religiously kept attitude.
agnostoatomo 1 year ago
@agnostoatomo Why shouldn't it be able to work in "high capitalist" economies? Worker cooperatives and the like continue to exist in such places. Spain, France, and Italy continue to have large and growing worker coop movements even though they are now wealthy first-world countries. And many others (Canada, Japan, United States) are beginning to develop similar movements.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax I can say something about Europe where i'm lucky 2 see that there are some movements...but large?
According 2 how workers used 2 be organized in the late 19th cent. up 2 the 20's last cent. it's ridiculous nowadays.
I assume that most Workers in Europe are pretty aware of the shit around them&the sell out of their Economies 4 the sake of a bunch of A**holes but they are 2 fearsome 4 a true change&their loss of convenience.
I still hope 4 the best!
agnostoatomo 1 year ago
@agnostoatomo There are very large-scale organizations of that kind in Europe. There are very large labor union federations, which have even organized across-borders and asist each other in strikes. There are also huge cooperative federations (such as the Cooperative Group in the UK, with 5 million members). Popular democracy can very much be practiced on a large scale.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@jesselakerr The same was said in times of absolutism about socalled "Democracy" & it's parlamentarian statism.Capitalism was a more civilian step in2 the hierarchy of propertarians(along with their extremists,the socalled Anarcocapitalists),bringing down the aristocratical hypocricy.I think your still right about Anarchism in the first 2 Generations,but s soon s it becomes a cultural mainstream & people grow up with it,there's a chance 4 Evolution in2 Anarchy through direct Democracy.
agnostoatomo 1 year ago
@jesselakerr I disagree that people necessarily need to be "educated," if being educated means in the Western sense of going through 12+ years of sitting in a room thinking about abstract ideas that are really only preparing one to be a functioning tool of corporations and the mass media. I'm a compassionate humanist because I've reasoned it out from reading many books, but many societies have more reliably nurtured the same tendencies by other cultural means. It's a structural problem.
firstnamenavarre 1 year ago
@jesselakerr Capitalism is the one that breeds unmotivated, uneducated, anti-social morons.
Mabuza14 1 year ago 11
categorical prioritization is born of unknowing ignorance.
willappleton 1 year ago
@Mabuza14 they are educated trust me, just in a capitalist way. i go to a bloody capitalist institution (which seems more like a money making corporation to me) and they 'learn' how to pass tests.
not free thought, not moral.
in fact, with uniforms, freedom of expression is pretty much banned too.
hipilovetrees 11 months ago
@Mabuza14 how?
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 Have you ever lived in a poor neighborhood and worked at a fast food place?
Mabuza14 6 months ago
@Mabuza14 yes. how does that make one lazy? Most of the social issues in poor neighborhoods I've seen all sprout from family breakdown,lack of local business,disdain for education(which was poor anyways), ignorance of financial planning, and gang prevalence due to drug profitability and the family breakdown.
If anything the people are led to complacency by the local culture without knowing it and then deliberately stay that way as they grow. these are capable people but what stops them?
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@Mabuza14 yes, i do right now. i ve always been poor. so why are you and i different. why do you think a certain way and i another? why are you a socialist and me a capitalist? can we have a civil debate?
aqueenowlbee 5 months ago
@aqueenowlbee I don't know you seem like an annoying kid who just wants to have debates on the internet all day because they're bored and have no life. You're not a capitalist if you're a worker FYI...
Mabuza14 5 months ago
@Mabuza14 i believe you are wrong if you are an american, and you want socialism. i would like to talk about it.
aqueenowlbee 5 months ago
@Mabuza14 so a capitalist is one who has a business, and has people work for him, for a wage?
aqueenowlbee 5 months ago
Comment removed
PositivelyBored 4 months ago
@Mabuza14
"You're not a capitalist if you're a worker FYI..."
That is NOT true. A capitalist is someone who ideologically agrees with capitalism. It is not necessarily only someone of invested wealth, or someone who sells products or services for profit.
Who are the poor to lower working class of citizens voting in elected officials, then?
If you vote in the elections you are a CAPITALIST because you support U.S. CAPITALISM.
Simple.
PositivelyBored 4 months ago
@PositivelyBored you're a capitalist if you vote?..what a stupid statement
ccraigd89 3 months ago
@ccraigd89
i meant that towards the two headed monster, not perhaps a true "libertarian" or etc vote. "libertarian" not meaning the modern american definition. you missed the point, or perhaps if took you out of context, my bad....I dunno, just responding to that post you made. The point was that 99.4% of Americans are invested in some type of capitalistic ideals. Surely there are a few true communist and socialist who 100% reject it, but hardly any..including myself
PositivelyBored 3 months ago
@ccraigd89
How can you be anti-capitalism, yet allow a politician to buy your vote (which is what politicians do , spend money to buy elections).
You own your vote and by voting, you are infact agreeing to the current system of mostly state driven capitalism.
PositivelyBored 2 months ago
@PositivelyBored You are a capitalist if you vote ??? That is one of the funniest things I have ever read !!!
OppressedAnarchist 2 months ago
@OppressedAnarchist
please read the post I just made and give me some insight. thanks. :)
PositivelyBored 2 months ago
@Mabuza14 wow thats wrong.
aqueenowlbee 5 months ago
@Mabuza14 bad parenting is the cause of unmotivated, uneducated, anti-social morons. not capitalism.
aqueenowlbee 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mabuza14 How does competition produce morons? Socialist policies are what removes the motovation to excel and succeed when it removes rewards.
LordShandor 5 months ago
@jesselakerr are you "educated" enough to know that Bakunin and other early anarchists were anti-semite? In fact Bakunin and Proudhon probably hated jews as much as Hitler did. Not only that, but Proudhon saw differences between blacks and whites: "Anti-semitism, always and everywhere, the acid test of racialism, with its division of mankind into creative and sterile races, led Proudhon to regard the Negro as the lowest in the racial hierarchy."
Vulturu 1 year ago
@Vulturu Source?
SuperOldschool1969 1 year ago
@SuperOldschool1969 Schapiro Salwyn - "Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Harbinger of Fascism"
Vulturu 1 year ago
@Vulturu [...] The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralisation of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found."
Vulturu 1 year ago
@SuperOldschool1969 and, a Bakunin quote: This whole Jewish world, comprising a single exploiting sect, a kind of blood sucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite, going beyond not only the frontiers of states, but of political opinion, this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other... This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank?
Vulturu 1 year ago
Comment removed
SuperOldschool1969 1 year ago
@Vulturu We don't need to expect Bakunin as being a pure,holy man who was 100% perfect in every aspect of his life.He was a child of his time,society,education & he was lacking some differentiation.Maybe in a few decades Anarchists will criticize every todays Anarchist who is not vegan!
I love many writings of Proudhon & Bakunin and disagree with certain positions of both(Proudhon was sexistic in some respect),without dismissing the basic attitude of Anarchy those guys showed in their lives.
agnostoatomo 1 year ago
@agnostoatomo well 99.99% of "modern" anarchists claim that anarchism is 100% anti-racist and anti-fascist, while the very first self-proclaimed anarchist claims that black slavery was not all that wrong and blame it on the jews. if you can tolerate this kind of rhetoric why not tolerate nationalism wich is less acid? if a modern politcian said anything like it you would like to shove petrol bombs up his ass, but you say bakunin and proudhon are great men.
Vulturu 1 year ago
1st reread my comment and learn the meaning of the word differentiation,2nd.Where did you read that about black slavery(Text and filenumber),i haven't heard of that.3rd:Bakunin understood the word differentiation because he had jews among his friends(he was more against capitalistic jewish internationalists),but i criticize his attitude on jews.4th:Bomb throwers are anomists not Anarchists,even if they call themselves so.Nationalism is the fertile ground for racism and of course fascism too.
agnostoatomo 1 year ago
@agnostoatomo i see nothing wrong admitting differences between races (racism). i think racial supremacists are totally wrong, but if we want to preserve global diversity of races and cultures we must segregate. the best way of doing that is through nationalism.
Vulturu 1 year ago
@Vulturu You won't find a single documented society in the past that developed themselves without the ability to integrate and assimilate! every higher language on this earth is a product of assimilation of words from other cultures,either greek,latin,chinese,spanish,german or nowadays english.There is no monolitical diversity that ever permanently existed,except in some desert or jungle areas in Africa,Southamerica or Africa,where a few small cultures have merely survived.
agnostoatomo 1 year ago
@agnostoatomo totally agree with that. just influences have to be limited. unlimited immigration and culture-mixing will result in societies and so-called cultures like the american "culture". u.s.a. is the perfect example of what will happen if you mix together many cultures. all are lost in favor of a single sub-culture, lowering population IQ to room temperature. pseudo-patriotism makes thing more ridiculous. one thing scares me about america though: it's ability to destroy other cultures.
Vulturu 1 year ago
@Vulturu In the case America vs. world i can see only 1 authentic step forward for the different world societies & that's the reconnection of the individual 2 his/her authentic feelings in accordance 2 the lack of need that stands behind it.That means 2 dismiss other agendas & their thinking patterns in 1s own mind & become social beings instead of mass cattle running after a "flag".If we could support each other 2 manage that,we would meet on same eyelevel & cooperate out of a healthy egoism.
agnostoatomo 1 year ago