What's with all the disgruntled anarchists? Clearly Gray is using the word as in it's colloquial definition, which is correct. To view this as an attack on a political system of Anarchism is such an elementary error. That would mean that Gray has interpreted the chaos (anarchy) in Iraq as a highly organized, stateless society of voluntary association. I don't think I've heard such a point of view from him before, or from anyone else actually. Until now... Bizarre.
@Barrettatsumaki Agreed...he's an absolute charlatan. The stuff he publishes in British political magazines and the op ed columns read like they were written by an ungraduate. His arguments are sloppy, contradictory and reactionary. He takes pot shots are more intellectually gifted people than himself and his predictions are regularly trounced by real events
I thought philosophers were supposed to seek truth and goodness, not be apologists for what they deem to be the least-harmful lies and crimes. The field of Public Relations already performs this function for the media and the masses; perhaps philosophers are needed to extend this function out to the intellectual elite.
They never believed any of this would help Iraq anyway.
The Roman Empire was preferable to anarchy for middle-class Romans - with whom I'm sure John Gray could have had many a polite and penetrating philosophical conversation. It was not preferable for the slaves and sword-fodder, who numbered in the millions, just like the dead, enslaved, oppressed and deceived all over America's vast global economic-military empire.
You guys have got to be kidding me. Do you really think that no government would be better when the government is the only thing keeping two religious sects from trying to cleanse out the other?
iraq didnt need to be made, the peaple's seperation if any is kurd suni and shiite why not make a sunistan kurdistan and shiitstan, the arms industry would be pissed but it might solve some problems
This is sort of like having the people who steal all the food from my garden having a meeting to discuss why I don't do a better job of feeding my kids - and what should they do about me? Pedantic drivel.
Capitalism, Corporate or State dominated or In It together is the wage slavery of immense humanity for abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration for the elite, 250 top corporations control over 1/3 of the world GDP. More than 3 billion workers are on 2 dollars a day. Capitalism is template of perpetual war,oppression,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and suffering, A dehumanising distorting minority imposition in thier inatiable drive for ever more Profit no matter what
@ncfwhitetigress Nope, I live in Holland, no guns allowed and its ridiculous. Governments prohibit guns so it does not have a threat from the people anymore. And the greatest threat to the people is the government itself. Its a crooked relationship.
...Its true in many situations where the state loses power the feuding factions and gangs are fighting and it isnt completely clear who holds power where, but the same thing happens between recognized states engaged in war but the area fought over is regarded as "contested" not in "anarchy".
True anarchy involves the absence of coercive hierarchy. A true anarchist would work to oppose any coercive hierarchy, including gangs trying to impose their will on people.
How can u truly call it anarchy if there are gangs with control in some areas? A state is defined as having a monopoly on the use of force over a given area. If a gang has effective control over a block how is that different other than that its over a lot smaller area? U could redefine the whole world as 1 country & then define every government as a gang & then say the world is in anarchy. ...
And globally it is split into separate hierarchical(therefore not anarchical) factions most of whose interests are dominated by a class of the wealthiest money-makers whose interests are becoming more and more concentrated together.
this guy and meny like him are confined within a field of thought that will never grasp the underlying causes of human suffering. And to think that consumerism, for instance, is of no consequence to Anarchy or Authoritarianism is to miss the point entirely
John Gray gives people the understanding of knowledge, while removing the artifice of gratuity. If you doubt his kind nature you are mistaken, I have not met this man but am convinced by a creative idealism and melded perception he is an angel, if there ever were such a thing.
Rhode Island (16361648) was a anarchist community. In the words of Gorton, for over five years the settlement "lived peaceably together, desiring and endeavoring to do wrong to no man, neither English nor Indian, ending all our differences in a neighborly and loving way of arbitration, mutually chosen amongst us."
What a bull argument. There is almost no way Iraq would have drifted into this decade in one piece. Saddam would have passed it on to his sons. Become the international terror he was before only worse with more cash from high oil prices..or his regiem would have collapsed and what happened 2005-2007 would have happened anyways with no real way to put it back together and the relative peace we see now may never have come.
ok, I'm gonna comment about this now, before I watch the video and again after but now I'd say that it is extremely naive and shortsighted to compare, for example, the situation in Iraq now with any other way of anarchy. Iraq is not an anarchy at the moment but a fucked up land that has been intentionally kept fucked up for the last few years because of political interests(oil related). Remove the war and the political interests and you'd have a completely different situation.
ok,I stand by my previous statement and go further to say that this guy talking on this video is really not the best person to sit down and have a philosophical (or any other smart talk) conversation with.
Man, the guy is so shortsighted and thinks in such a simplistic way that borders the idiotic side of human intellect.
He has no real understanding of the situation in Iraq pre and post war(or he wouldn't say what he did) and not a clue about what anarchy is...
hombre, you really should read some of his articles. A far more thoughtful philosophy lies behind these rhetoric-induced simplifications - a far more perceptive and thought-out one, I dare say, than yours likely is. Don't forget this guy has a degree, BA, MPhil and PhD in PPE.
His comment on Iraq, if you did some research, was actually vaguely correct (slightly wary on the claim of 'anarchy'), but has now turned away from his prediction as Iraqi politics secularise (opendeomcracy article)
Saddam ruled by personal decree and by Baath Party ideology (Arab nationalism / socialism / authoritarianism); he did not rule by Sharia law, force women to be completely covered, enforce stonings, etc. Hence although a dictator, he's a relatively secular one, given the context of the Middle East.
They know the difference. He sounds like one of the jolly old chaps who who cheered for the embargo and blockades against the Spanish Republic, while the Italians invaded in force and the Nazis honed their war machine, and called it "neutrality." Fascist Corporatism threatened millions of other peoples lives and Anarchism threatened their money. It was an easy choice for the ol' empire. It's not from ignorance that they speak this way about "anarchy."
But as anarchy is merely the absence of government (anarchy is not [always] synonymous with chaos, as government types would have one believe), Gray only refers to where there is even yet tribalism. Even is a tyranny was removed, the tribalism would remain to become numerous little tyrannies.
Incidentally, Mister Gray is incorrect on Bush Sr.; after the Gulf War, a number of Iraqi Generals rebelled. The rebel generals asked the US for captured Iraqi arms (tanks etc) to fight Saddam. The US said no.
When Saddam asked the US for permission to use attack helicopters to put down the Shiite / Kurdish rebellion, the US said yes. The reason for this was because they felt Iraq would be easier to administer as a single nation, rather than the three it would unquestionably become.
Actually, I believe Saddams regime had asked to keep said helicopters for transportation of government officials. The reason being that the U.S. had bombed many bridges and that cars weren't sufficient.
Let's say for a moment that's true. This prompts us to ask just how useful is a six seater aircraft for transportation? The Mi24 Hind, is useful for one thing; combat. This prompts a further question, if your claim is true, just how naive would the US government have to be to accept such a claim on its face?
As i said before the helicopters were for transportation of government officials. Now how many seats would you need for such a task? And yes, the U.S. government is that naive.
Well, while I dont disagree with your sentiment, I do disagree with the salience of your example. The war on drugs isnt an example naiveté, it is an industry that employs thousands and, more importantly, is a source of corporate welfare in the shape of hefty government contracts for private enterprise. The only point that may be called naïve is the notion that it might be about keeping the US citizenry safe from drugs.
The point being that I do not believe that the US government is naïve. More to the point, while the legislative and executive branches may be, the intelligence apparatus and the corporate oligarchy, (the most latter) which pull the strings of the more former are not. From Guatemala in the fifties to Iraq in the new millennia, the form of foreign policy has always (post WWII, at least) functioned to serve their interests.
Let's not turn this argument into something it's not. I only meant to correct you on the fact of the helicopters. I didn't mean to sound as though i were denying the existence of such influences.
Well, my point is that your "correction" is about as correct as the claim that the US really did invade Iraq to stop Saddam's development and use of WMDs. I mean, despite that being official history now, does anyone believe it anymore?
Anarchy, as per the historical meaning of the term (i.e.: Orwells Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, or the early Israeli Kibbutz collectives) has been shown to be a remarkably successful strategy when permitted to function.
Anarchy, as per the common use of the term, leaderless chaos often found in the immediate aftermath of the toppling of a government bears absolutely no relationship to the former. To suggest otherwise is an equivocation akin to likening mob rule to democracy.
I think all these passionate defenders of anarchy are getting a largely untried utopian idea of a leaderless society mixed up with actual historical examples of what happens when an administration is suddenly removed.
I also think they should note that John Gray did say the word 'CAN' - "Anarchies can be worse than tyranny".
I made this argument myself, in my original post. I said that, "If man is good, then government is unnecessary." But of course, as General Barre, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot and many others have shown, man is not good. The fact that our species has evaded extinction for this long is testament to the fact that man is also not entirely bad. Man is ambivalent. Why then, if man has both the power to act destructively and beneficially, should we concentrate power to a select group of people, the state?
There are only two things wrong with humanity. Those that think they know the peoples interests better than the people themselves do and those that believe them.
Sure, Gray is smart and smooth as silk, but he doesn't understand the meaning of anarchy. An anarchist sees the state as essentially a violent force, as an enslaving, self- perpetuating, illegitimate
entity which interferes with having peaceful, prosperous & free communities. These are absolutely possible -- but clearly, people have to be prepared to live freely. People won't be ready for this if they have been living under tyranny. That Gray can't see this shows his blindness.
I wholly agree with user MScaurus, just like I do with J.G. Ballard from Daily Telegraph who said about Gray's book Straw Dogs (2002) "it challenges all our assumptions about what it is to be human and convincingly shows that most of them are delusions. Who are we and why are we here? John Gray's answers will shock most of us deeply. This is the most exhilarating book I have read since Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.
To me, Straw Dogs was very much like a revelation. I cannot say that I fully share Gray's grim view of mankind, but I find his writing very refreshing and challenging. One should read such a book every year.
Neither can I say I agree on everything Gray says or writes, but I respect greatly his courage to say things straight and clear. I also think we need real much grim honest thinkers like him. Over optimistic humanism alone can be also very destructive and lead to delusions that cause unnecessary misery and pain to far too many...
No comparison with Dawkins who is essentially a proselytising fantasist. Gray isa powerfully informative voice on the folly of supposing that liberal humanism has any profound comprehension of human nature.
I would tend to disagree. Rational anarchism would be much more favorable than an authoritarian establishment. There were anarcho-syndicalist communes in Spain during the Spanish Civil War during the 1930's that were able to function well enough to convince George Orwell of its merit. With the lack of authoritarian structures, society would eventually create order without the oppression of authoritarian/totalitarian governments. For exable syndicalism or collectivism would generate order.
The problem with Iraq lied with its people. The only thing holding Iraq together was a brutal tyrant. When Saddam was gone, law & order was on hold, and so the different factions fueled by religious fanaticism, politics, ethnicity, or tribalism boiled over and created havoc. You see, under dictatorship it's hard to learn how to respect others and their differences without having a boot in your face telling you that you should.
i feel that a big part of the problem is the illusion that you can 'give' democracy to people. the succesful democracies of the world have been fought for by the people, people who had to work with and compromise with folks of differing opinion to reach a common concensus to achieve thier goals. when they bypass the process of working with each other to gain freedom then the results of the gained freedom are no more than a material prize, a cheap reward, a thing to demand like sweets for a child
Well, I think a huge part of the problem was foreign interference, such as Iran with the Shia, they armed the most radical Shia to kill U.S. troops and Islamize Iraq. Then there's Syria who most likely supported the remnants of the Baathists to topple the new government and kill U.S. troops, and lastly Al-Qaeda who target Shia, secular Sunnis and U.S. troops.
It's the age of war by proxy.
I'll tell you though, the Kurds fought alongside U.S. troops since the beginning, and are thankful.
in part i can agree. foreign interference is part of the problem but the fact that the iraqi's themselves did not need to cooperate to overthrow saddam means that they never had to work together (with the give and take that involves) and build a relationship. suddenly they were handed a stake in government and all they wanted was as much power as possible for thier own faction. The foreign elements are merely exaserbating the problem by inreasing an existing tension between the various groups
Anarchists responding to this video are missing the point. He is saying that in some circumstances a dictatorship is worse than anarchy. Anarchy means disorder. He doesn't mean a hypothetical thought out democratically chosen anarchy. You guys are so passionate about anarchism that you respond in a knee jerk fashion to any critique of your political ideology.
Correction "dictatorship isn't worse than anarchy". I have anarchist leanings because of the corruption in almost every government I know. However I think human beings are too combative and competitive for anarchism to be practical. I admit I haven't researched anarchism as much as some on YouTube but you guys need to take criticism on board instead of saying "He doesn't understand anarchy". Especially when this isn't what this video is about.
I do take criticisms but know I think I see that he wasn't speaking about the lack of coercion anarchism. If he was this was a terrible way to represent it and would be a complete strawman.
Btw, any argument you make against human nature applies to those in the state as well and does not establish a reason for a state since there are humans "running" it and it really even magnifies the problem for statists since humans under non voluntary states have coercive backed monopolies.
Accually all you did was make an argument against human nature. That doesn't do any good because it is humans in the government that have a a monopoly of power.
I am not arguing against human nature. I accept human nature. Or I accept the differences in human nature that make me think anarchism won't happen unless we rid the world of a lot of it's ills. Additionally I am sceptical that we will be able to that do.
Well if he is not speaking about anarchism containing that meaning and not the absence or resistance against coercion than I would agree with you. However, voluntarism is not exactly a political ideology but a lack of a forced one unto others. I have my own personal political ideologue but I recognize it is not my right to force it unto others. Btw, I don't exactly know what you mean by democratically chosen anarchism.
no.... Having it done democratically is having to beg others to have your freedom. The force is forcing others to live under your system when they commit no aggression. A way it can be done successfully is speaking to people about how modern statism is imperialism against indiviuals.
This is an excellent viewpoint - but the question remains HOW do we get people to stop throwing away their own power - how do we get the 80% who don't vote to start realizing how deadly important it is to DO SOMETHING to find solutions?
Precisely why must I accept Mr. Gray's definition of anarchy and then presuppose, as he does, that it is a bad thing only to be supplanted occasionally by the truly unbelievable dictators of the past?
I don't necessarily suppose anything to be preferable to anarchy, nor do I consider anarchy to be an inherently bad thing.
And Jinjin, you have defined anarchy as chaos, and for that, you are a retard. That is equivocation.
CHECK OUT RON PAUL!! Youtube is full of great Ron Paul videos. If personal freedom and limited government is what interests you, you will LOVE Ron Paul.
This guy doesn't know what he's tlkin about. First, we were going to go into Iraq no matter who was the president, they voted for that in the 90s. Second, anarchy is way better than authoritarianism. No matter how many people are hurt as a result of anarchy is not the point, it is the fact that they have freedom to control their own lives. if people live in a truly anarchistic society where all forms of coercion are abolished, then there is little chance of mass murder and death.
And if wishes were horses we'd all ride to work. Pure ideologies are impossible to put into practice. In the old Iraq as difficult as it was under Hussein you at least knew how to conduct yourself in order to survive. Now you have hundreds of violent groups all hell bent on getting their way and no matter what you do you will upset one faction or another to the point that they want to kill you. What control do these people have over their lives when some extremeist can take it away in a second?
i would rather live in a society where i can defend myself and have freedom than a society where i do not control my own life, but have the security that my life will be spared.
So would I, but the fact is that in some cases the dictators can provide better security and society than an anarchy. Even democracy is not freedom, after all you have laws to obey. The "freedom" bought to Iraq now means that it is no longer safe to walk the streets, foreign armies are occupying their land and countless groups with different agendas are now free to do what they will. Ain't freedom grand?
well im jewish and hanukkah harry does exist :D. and anothergazman: what ever happened to give me liberty or give me death... I am not saying that the Iraqis are living in anarchy, they aren't but to live in anarchy peacefully every1 has to agree on anarchy. people need to be educated for that to happen and they need to be taught that no one is better than anyone else and no one has the right to control others.
"to live in anarchy peacefully every1 has to agree on anarchy"
Therin lies the problem, who decides the rules of this anarchic society. Is it ok to do anything you want to further your situation or are there limits and who imposes them. To live peacefully in a society you have to give up certain libertys, the freedom to kill is the freedom to be killed. We can see what pure anarchy is because its living large in Iraq now.
Exactly! Tribal law is what is being advocated here. We all know how well that works out in the middle east. And without leaders how is anything supposed to get done? Societies cannot run without leaders. Who in the community would organise the community? How would they decide who runs things? How does a community organise infrastructure or social care without leadership? Without people calling the shots, society would be quite simply crippled. You cant run every aspect of society by commitee.
if you are serious about having answers to those questions there is a long history of thinking to answer all those questions and some great channels which explain anarchy very elloquently on here, check out stefbot, anarchosquirrelist and would say confederalsocialist but unfortunately i think his channel is temporarily suspended
there are very rational answers to all those questions
Thank you, I am always serious when asking this sort of question. So far though I've always had frankly idealistic, incomplete and naieve answers that would never work in real life. I will check them out now.
well to be honest we see statism as utopian and idealist
the argument of "people are bad and so they need a government to keep them in check" is immature because when you have a legal monopoly of force, which is what the state is, all the bad people are only going to want to get control of it and use it to serve their own ends, and thats exactly what we see happening
I never said people were bad. the problem lies in the fact that people have different solutions to all problems. the lack of leadership would mean that even the simplest problems would be bogged down in argument. This is why we have government. We elect someone to control the minutia and the issues that require decisivness (road maintainence, hospital building, law passing etc). Democracy ISN'T perfect,but do you you think thousands of mini-governtments will work better or be less corrupt?
it's good that people have different solutions to problems, and it's better that decisions are made in the local community instead of by a centrally elected government that have litterally no expertise in putting their decisions into practice
this would allow all these different solutions to be tried by the common feeling of people in different areas, the solutions created by the best run communities would soon be univeralised
Ok, thats called local goverment we already have that. Central government is there for stuff that requires uniformity at a national level. With anarchic communities how would you ever organise national projects? How would decisions be made and by who(surely not everything will be voted on)Its true that our current system needs serious work but I think it's at least in the ball park. We can vote, protest and affect law at the civilian level. Do you have any examples of an anarchic nation working?
there wouldn't be a nation and therefore no national projects only projects on varying scales between voluntary colaboraters
decisions would be made based on what was needed an enacted by local people themselves rather than deferring to a wasteful authority who overtax them then squander the money because there is no accountability or competition in public services so year upon year the budget requires higher taxation
So no public roads, health service, police, fire service or educational system, i'm not sure you're really selling this to me. All these things in order to be practicle have to come from a bigger system than a local one. How could a village afford to supply all these things alone?
Again, Would every decision require a vote and if not who makes those decisions?
Competition in public services? So do you want a private fire service or nhs that'll charge you when you are at your most vulnerable?
no public roads, they would be provided on a need basis and just as well because there are far too many roads right now, rail would be more prevalent because it's cheaper and more efficient, only the existence of state accomodates such irresponsible building of infrastructure
enducation would be created in the community to serve the needs of the community, right now we don't ahve an education system but an indoctrination system that teaches very few practical skills, that would quickly change
I'm sorry but you're talking about an infrastructure that would collapse (backwater towns would get cut off quickly due to lack of demand) unregulated education would provide wildly different standards so no one would know what a qualification means not to mention the lack of funds in smaller communities would mean less teachers and resorces. Universal healthcare has to be funded and it is VERY expensive and distributed over the whole country. It can only be afforded with a universal tax!
there would almost certainly still be universal healthcare because most people want to live in a world where they can be assured they will be treated when they're ill, it would also be a lot cheaper to provide because there would be no centralised beaurocracy and it would be run by the people working in the industry who knew how to do it rather then a top down approach from managers who are oftentimes disconnected from the real machinations of what goes on in the service industry
All of this would rely on everyone of the thousands of commune groups coopeating and have the same agenda and plan. Essentialy you would by necessety have to form a governing body to organise the whole thing and collect taxes in order to ensure everyone who benefits from this pays their share or charge on an individual basis. Disparate groups are simply not capable of being organised enough to create and run such a system.
there usually wouldn't be votes except within the bounds of private agreements, things would just emerge because people would become more and more in the habbit of runnign their own communities,
all the progress you see around you is not owed to the state, infact the state is a parasite on the side of it, everything we have we have because we as a people strive towards creating these things to make our lives easier, they are entirely emergent and do not require a centralised government
Also some groups will not agree that universal health care should be a priority, the richer communities may feel that they would rather pay for their own healthcare, everyone else be damned. The anarchy doctrine relies absolutley on everyone having the same sense of community, this in reality is not going to happen. with one governing body the acceptable compromises can be reached.
Hell, 2/3rds of the voters cant even find Iraq on a Map...less the 22 percent can find Afghanistan so use you arguments on the USA voters right to vote, 70 percent shouldn't be allowed to vote.
IQ Pre-Voting Poll test, that 1 issue would clear up a lot of the world problems almost overnight.
anarchy is awesome. no government telling people what to do, society's functioning on purely voluntary basis. Anarchy would be awesome. There has never been anarchy before because a tyrant always fills the void.
yes your neighbors stealing from you. gangs in your streets so you cant go out, your women cant go out in the fear of getting raped. that sounds great.
Fucking Yanks always says the same bloody thing dont you. Dont talk to me about comparing which is better when you haven't lived in a country where you cant walk outside your door step because you can might get mugged, killed (literally). Always about democracy and freedom. Well you dont have any - you haven't had any of these for decades. You are living in a mirage and defending it like the Nazis did with their freedom. You Country is seen as the new NAZIS.
UK is a police state too so I wouldn't be talking you stupid limey. And besides in America that wouldn't happen because private citizens own lots of guns. An armed society is a polite society.
Spoiled fucking brats the lot of yous. None of you have any idea what its like living in rich country like UK or US - maybe in the next couple of years when the shit truly hits the fan then you can crave how good you had it. Ever wonder why so many migrants come to your country in the UK from places like Africa, Mid East, Bad parts of Asia - it aint for the Fish & chips and weather. Do you hear them complaining?
jinjin, wake up dude. The government is not the people. Just because the thugs in power are hypocrits doesn't mean the people can't talk about ideals.
Well thanks for the wake up call - such a cliche thing to say by the way - the Government is not the people - really - i didn't know that - now I am enlightened.
Hears a reality check. The reason why the Government get away with so much because all people do is fucking talk.
How about this - Cheney just admitted he gave orders to torture prisoners on an TV interview. What do people do? Just talk - infact they hardly complained. It's like Cheney saying to you - what you going to do about it?
You don't need to convince me about the evils of government jinjin, I am an anarchist. 顺便问一下， 你是中国人吗？看到了"jinjin"似乎是汉语名字. One person can't throw down a government, it's true. But we can live our philosophies in our own lives, and talk to other people we know.
You have no idea what anarchy means. For you anarchy is some punk sex pistols lets rebel against the government pussy shit. No one if they know what they are talking about - no one wants anarchy, especially if you are in the midst of it. Hear what I say and stop being an ideological brat. Do you get that!? Find another ideology that is worth following. I have been in the middle of chaos and no sane person would want that repeated. Understood.
"You have no idea what anarchy means" oh ok, I'm glad you know more about what I know than I know myself. "no one wants anarchy," I do. " I have been in the middle of chaos " Besides the obvious misnomer that your personal experiences have nothing to do with anything as far as theory goes, anarcho capitalism is the opposite of chaos. After reading your posts, I'm rather tempted to suggest you yourself haven't looked into what anarchy means. Anarchy is not a synonym for chaos.
Good point. The meanings associated with the word are misleading --- much like Objectivism's "selfish". Both terms represent quite good theories, but are misinterpretted because of secondary or tertiary meanings associated with the words.
On the other hand, the reason they are throwing shoes and making clear they want us out is because we fucked up their country "for generations" and they realize it.
So the question of this video is valid, "Anarchy or Authoritarianism: Which is Worse?"
They did have tyranny, but WE MADE IT WORSE!
We in the US should follow the founders wisdom . Stay out of entangling alliances and mind our own business.
Comparing Iraqi occupation, martial law, govt ownership & especially foreign ownership to anything remotely resembling anarchy is beyond ignorant. It simply speaks to his agenda. However, in some instances, dictatorships are better than corrupt democracies which allow bankers and foreigners to control an economy.
What's with all the disgruntled anarchists? Clearly Gray is using the word as in it's colloquial definition, which is correct. To view this as an attack on a political system of Anarchism is such an elementary error. That would mean that Gray has interpreted the chaos (anarchy) in Iraq as a highly organized, stateless society of voluntary association. I don't think I've heard such a point of view from him before, or from anyone else actually. Until now... Bizarre.
mattvansickle 3 months ago
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about...
Barrettatsumaki 3 months ago
@Barrettatsumaki Agreed...he's an absolute charlatan. The stuff he publishes in British political magazines and the op ed columns read like they were written by an ungraduate. His arguments are sloppy, contradictory and reactionary. He takes pot shots are more intellectually gifted people than himself and his predictions are regularly trounced by real events
TomthatiscalledTom 3 months ago
I thought philosophers were supposed to seek truth and goodness, not be apologists for what they deem to be the least-harmful lies and crimes. The field of Public Relations already performs this function for the media and the masses; perhaps philosophers are needed to extend this function out to the intellectual elite.
FrogmortonHotchkiss 3 months ago
They never believed any of this would help Iraq anyway.
The Roman Empire was preferable to anarchy for middle-class Romans - with whom I'm sure John Gray could have had many a polite and penetrating philosophical conversation. It was not preferable for the slaves and sword-fodder, who numbered in the millions, just like the dead, enslaved, oppressed and deceived all over America's vast global economic-military empire.
FrogmortonHotchkiss 3 months ago
The answer is authoritarianism
Wilcofan1121 6 months ago
This guy has absolutely no idea what political anarchism is.
LlortnA 7 months ago
I hate it when people confuse anarchy with anomie.
greenday4455 8 months ago
You guys have got to be kidding me. Do you really think that no government would be better when the government is the only thing keeping two religious sects from trying to cleanse out the other?
ryukXsayu27 8 months ago
anarchy is always better than totalitarianism.
But nevertheless its not very preferable.
The best way of governing lies much closer to anarachy than to totalitarianism
unfad1ng 11 months ago 3
@unfad1ng I prefer anarchy.
EnochEmery251 9 months ago
bad video. sure the us would've invaded iraq even without 911 - that was just the excuse they used. and anarchy /= chaos.
Ichtiostega 1 year ago
Anarchy for New Guinea, it's a coming sometime a maybe a...
ninyae 1 year ago
Anarchy is the point when a power structure has just yet to develop.
but if you think no power structure i sustainable, you are absolutely kidding yourself.
that said, vote RON PAUL 2012.
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
Brutal, sadistic? Bush ain't doin nothin.
zsezse215 1 year ago
iraq didnt need to be made, the peaple's seperation if any is kurd suni and shiite why not make a sunistan kurdistan and shiitstan, the arms industry would be pissed but it might solve some problems
manoftrix 1 year ago
This is sort of like having the people who steal all the food from my garden having a meeting to discuss why I don't do a better job of feeding my kids - and what should they do about me? Pedantic drivel.
finallykickinback 1 year ago
this guy needs to learn what anarchism actualy is rather than repeating the mainstream misconception and term meaning 'chaos'
mirikidd 1 year ago 7
The collapsed state is not anarchism or anti-statism.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago 3
Hes just postulating that sometimes the only alternative to removing a tyrant is anarchy. Maybe it is the way its done that should be changed?
pappapaps 1 year ago
Haha, I this guy is a hack.
Nades129 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Capitalism, Corporate or State dominated or In It together is the wage slavery of immense humanity for abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration for the elite, 250 top corporations control over 1/3 of the world GDP. More than 3 billion workers are on 2 dollars a day. Capitalism is template of perpetual war,oppression,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and suffering, A dehumanising distorting minority imposition in thier inatiable drive for ever more Profit no matter what
arzoyan 1 year ago
authoritarianism is worse, because people can't live for themselves when they don't have freedom of choice.
karkelkhan 1 year ago
@karkelkhan Your dumb if you really think that Just because the government CAN control your freedom doesn't MEAN HE WILL!
Besides your average voter is an idiot and if you like Anarchy go to Somalia.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
@SniperViper1000 Rule #1: if a government can control its people, its a matter of time before they will.
karkelkhan 1 year ago
@karkelkhan but without some government, there is no one to protect your freedoms
ncfwhitetigress 1 year ago
@ncfwhitetigress I can protect my freedoms much better than any government.
karkelkhan 1 year ago
@karkelkhan I take it you have a gun collection?
ncfwhitetigress 1 year ago
@ncfwhitetigress Nope, I live in Holland, no guns allowed and its ridiculous. Governments prohibit guns so it does not have a threat from the people anymore. And the greatest threat to the people is the government itself. Its a crooked relationship.
karkelkhan 1 year ago
...Its true in many situations where the state loses power the feuding factions and gangs are fighting and it isnt completely clear who holds power where, but the same thing happens between recognized states engaged in war but the area fought over is regarded as "contested" not in "anarchy".
True anarchy involves the absence of coercive hierarchy. A true anarchist would work to oppose any coercive hierarchy, including gangs trying to impose their will on people.
sicktoaster 1 year ago
How can u truly call it anarchy if there are gangs with control in some areas? A state is defined as having a monopoly on the use of force over a given area. If a gang has effective control over a block how is that different other than that its over a lot smaller area? U could redefine the whole world as 1 country & then define every government as a gang & then say the world is in anarchy. ...
sicktoaster 1 year ago
@sicktoaster that's pretty much how it is tho... there is no global government
ncfwhitetigress 1 year ago
@ncfwhitetigress
And globally it is split into separate hierarchical(therefore not anarchical) factions most of whose interests are dominated by a class of the wealthiest money-makers whose interests are becoming more and more concentrated together.
sicktoaster 1 year ago
this guy and meny like him are confined within a field of thought that will never grasp the underlying causes of human suffering. And to think that consumerism, for instance, is of no consequence to Anarchy or Authoritarianism is to miss the point entirely
GnosisMan50 1 year ago
John Gray gives people the understanding of knowledge, while removing the artifice of gratuity. If you doubt his kind nature you are mistaken, I have not met this man but am convinced by a creative idealism and melded perception he is an angel, if there ever were such a thing.
themikealike 1 year ago
there is a difference between anarchy and anomia. Surprised to see such a smart man stoop into mainstream trashtalk.
fruitsofnews 1 year ago
Rhode Island (16361648) was a anarchist community. In the words of Gorton, for over five years the settlement "lived peaceably together, desiring and endeavoring to do wrong to no man, neither English nor Indian, ending all our differences in a neighborly and loving way of arbitration, mutually chosen amongst us."
TheLoyalSkeptic 1 year ago
@TheLoyalSkeptic can you please tell me where i can read about pre Rhode Island??
jesselakerr 1 year ago
@TheLoyalSkeptic He didn't live back then so there's no proof.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
What a bull argument. There is almost no way Iraq would have drifted into this decade in one piece. Saddam would have passed it on to his sons. Become the international terror he was before only worse with more cash from high oil prices..or his regiem would have collapsed and what happened 2005-2007 would have happened anyways with no real way to put it back together and the relative peace we see now may never have come.
EasyEs 1 year ago
@EasyEs Iraqi's are starting to admit life under Saddam was better tehn it is now therefore your logic is flawed.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
@SniperViper1000 Says who and when?
EasyEs 1 year ago
I love John Gray's book "Straw Dogs". He rips Socrates and humanism a new asshole. He destroys the bullshit notion of morality. Very powerful book.
PleaseLookAtMyCock 2 years ago
@PleaseLookAtMyCock Wise words from one with such an odd posting name.
MrErisian 2 years ago
ok, I'm gonna comment about this now, before I watch the video and again after but now I'd say that it is extremely naive and shortsighted to compare, for example, the situation in Iraq now with any other way of anarchy. Iraq is not an anarchy at the moment but a fucked up land that has been intentionally kept fucked up for the last few years because of political interests(oil related). Remove the war and the political interests and you'd have a completely different situation.
tommytalks77 2 years ago
ok,I stand by my previous statement and go further to say that this guy talking on this video is really not the best person to sit down and have a philosophical (or any other smart talk) conversation with.
Man, the guy is so shortsighted and thinks in such a simplistic way that borders the idiotic side of human intellect.
He has no real understanding of the situation in Iraq pre and post war(or he wouldn't say what he did) and not a clue about what anarchy is...
This video is a mega-fail!
tommytalks77 2 years ago
hombre, you really should read some of his articles. A far more thoughtful philosophy lies behind these rhetoric-induced simplifications - a far more perceptive and thought-out one, I dare say, than yours likely is. Don't forget this guy has a degree, BA, MPhil and PhD in PPE.
His comment on Iraq, if you did some research, was actually vaguely correct (slightly wary on the claim of 'anarchy'), but has now turned away from his prediction as Iraqi politics secularise (opendeomcracy article)
torstenfrostII 2 years ago
aint nothing wrong with anarchy
djboony 2 years ago 3
How he describes Saddam as "secular" escapes me.
ScarletandCreme32 2 years ago
Saddam ruled by personal decree and by Baath Party ideology (Arab nationalism / socialism / authoritarianism); he did not rule by Sharia law, force women to be completely covered, enforce stonings, etc. Hence although a dictator, he's a relatively secular one, given the context of the Middle East.
sirhumphrey01 2 years ago 3
I dont think he is talking about anarchy as in Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Proudhon, etc.
Its more like the common interpretation of the term, like chaos, lack of any order
Yeah, its anomie.
welcometoskyvalley 2 years ago 25
@welcometoskyvalley
They know the difference. He sounds like one of the jolly old chaps who who cheered for the embargo and blockades against the Spanish Republic, while the Italians invaded in force and the Nazis honed their war machine, and called it "neutrality." Fascist Corporatism threatened millions of other peoples lives and Anarchism threatened their money. It was an easy choice for the ol' empire. It's not from ignorance that they speak this way about "anarchy."
wapsiwilly 6 months ago 3
I believe he is confusing anarchy with anomie.
wallyb77 2 years ago 4
the worst is what is now
hierarchy
pookking 2 years ago 5
I agree, I don't think he even knows what anarchy really is. =/
xXLizzyLoserXx 2 years ago 4
But as anarchy is merely the absence of government (anarchy is not [always] synonymous with chaos, as government types would have one believe), Gray only refers to where there is even yet tribalism. Even is a tyranny was removed, the tribalism would remain to become numerous little tyrannies.
realbadger 2 years ago
Gray is brilliant and often right but he's also often hysterical and prone doom-mongering fantasies
cp1492 2 years ago
Incidentally, Mister Gray is incorrect on Bush Sr.; after the Gulf War, a number of Iraqi Generals rebelled. The rebel generals asked the US for captured Iraqi arms (tanks etc) to fight Saddam. The US said no.
When Saddam asked the US for permission to use attack helicopters to put down the Shiite / Kurdish rebellion, the US said yes. The reason for this was because they felt Iraq would be easier to administer as a single nation, rather than the three it would unquestionably become.
JoeNietzsche 2 years ago
The point being that it had nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqi people but was a policy based on expediency for US interests.
Mister Gray is either being interestingly selective in his history or the clip is ridiculously incomplete for the point being made.
JoeNietzsche 2 years ago
Actually, I believe Saddams regime had asked to keep said helicopters for transportation of government officials. The reason being that the U.S. had bombed many bridges and that cars weren't sufficient.
shuzbuh 2 years ago
Let's say for a moment that's true. This prompts us to ask just how useful is a six seater aircraft for transportation? The Mi24 Hind, is useful for one thing; combat. This prompts a further question, if your claim is true, just how naive would the US government have to be to accept such a claim on its face?
JoeNietzsche 2 years ago
As i said before the helicopters were for transportation of government officials. Now how many seats would you need for such a task? And yes, the U.S. government is that naive.
Example: WAR ON DRUGS
shuzbuh 2 years ago
Well, while I dont disagree with your sentiment, I do disagree with the salience of your example. The war on drugs isnt an example naiveté, it is an industry that employs thousands and, more importantly, is a source of corporate welfare in the shape of hefty government contracts for private enterprise. The only point that may be called naïve is the notion that it might be about keeping the US citizenry safe from drugs.
JoeNietzsche 2 years ago
The point being that I do not believe that the US government is naïve. More to the point, while the legislative and executive branches may be, the intelligence apparatus and the corporate oligarchy, (the most latter) which pull the strings of the more former are not. From Guatemala in the fifties to Iraq in the new millennia, the form of foreign policy has always (post WWII, at least) functioned to serve their interests.
JoeNietzsche 2 years ago
Let's not turn this argument into something it's not. I only meant to correct you on the fact of the helicopters. I didn't mean to sound as though i were denying the existence of such influences.
shuzbuh 2 years ago
Well, my point is that your "correction" is about as correct as the claim that the US really did invade Iraq to stop Saddam's development and use of WMDs. I mean, despite that being official history now, does anyone believe it anymore?
JoeNietzsche 2 years ago 3
Why such a hostile tone? lets make friends =D
shuzbuh 2 years ago
I can see from your account you like goats. You like Bill Hicks by any chance?
Goatboy?
shuzbuh 2 years ago
Anarchy, as per the historical meaning of the term (i.e.: Orwells Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, or the early Israeli Kibbutz collectives) has been shown to be a remarkably successful strategy when permitted to function.
Anarchy, as per the common use of the term, leaderless chaos often found in the immediate aftermath of the toppling of a government bears absolutely no relationship to the former. To suggest otherwise is an equivocation akin to likening mob rule to democracy.
JoeNietzsche 2 years ago
If anarchists could grasp historical fact, they would see the folly of their pursuit.
eviltoastman 2 years ago
This comment is not only condescending, but also presumptuous and entirely false. I'm going to have to call ad hominem on that one.
rainskullvids 2 years ago 3
Which historical fact or series of facts is that?
Perhaps you ought to explain yourself rather than blithely throwing around virtually meaningless statements.
JoeNietzsche 2 years ago
Don't Mistake Anarchy (the absence of formal government) or even a Cratocracy with Anarchism (the No necessity of formal government)
Mark0Brazil 2 years ago
You dont know whats Anarchy.
Have been anarchys way better then any political system that exist.
AzoreanProud 2 years ago
I'm sick and tired with you talking about Anarchy. It's always the same. Never know what you mean.
Anyway, Anarchy is My destination, if any. You're just an empty gun, poor philosopher! Happen to know...
denisplaku 2 years ago
I think all these passionate defenders of anarchy are getting a largely untried utopian idea of a leaderless society mixed up with actual historical examples of what happens when an administration is suddenly removed.
I also think they should note that John Gray did say the word 'CAN' - "Anarchies can be worse than tyranny".
I can't see how this is disputable really.
DaveAllenDaveAllen 2 years ago
If man is good, then government is unnecessary. If man is bad or ambivalent, then one doesn't dare give anyone else the power of government.
rainskullvids 2 years ago
Simple, ignorant, and pie in the sky enough for an anarchist to understand. For those of us who live in the real world though...
eviltoastman 2 years ago
Are you trying to say that, in the real world, politicians and government officials are somehow morally superior to everyone else?
rainskullvids 2 years ago
The necessity of Government does not hinge on the morality of man. Why if man is good would Government be uneccessary?
Anarchy would not be a solution. Anarchy would just be another problem. In seeking ultra liberalism, the result in it's application would be tyrany.
eviltoastman 2 years ago
I made this argument myself, in my original post. I said that, "If man is good, then government is unnecessary." But of course, as General Barre, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot and many others have shown, man is not good. The fact that our species has evaded extinction for this long is testament to the fact that man is also not entirely bad. Man is ambivalent. Why then, if man has both the power to act destructively and beneficially, should we concentrate power to a select group of people, the state?
rainskullvids 2 years ago
There are only two things wrong with humanity. Those that think they know the peoples interests better than the people themselves do and those that believe them.
JoeNietzsche 2 years ago
So you've given an opinion without any reasons why anyone should consider it, now what?
JoeNietzsche 2 years ago
Sure, Gray is smart and smooth as silk, but he doesn't understand the meaning of anarchy. An anarchist sees the state as essentially a violent force, as an enslaving, self- perpetuating, illegitimate
entity which interferes with having peaceful, prosperous & free communities. These are absolutely possible -- but clearly, people have to be prepared to live freely. People won't be ready for this if they have been living under tyranny. That Gray can't see this shows his blindness.
piemouth1 2 years ago
elites have always equated freedom with chaos.
bjarczyk 2 years ago 7
John Gray is a genius. Read his books.
MScaurus 3 years ago 5
I wholly agree with user MScaurus, just like I do with J.G. Ballard from Daily Telegraph who said about Gray's book Straw Dogs (2002) "it challenges all our assumptions about what it is to be human and convincingly shows that most of them are delusions. Who are we and why are we here? John Gray's answers will shock most of us deeply. This is the most exhilarating book I have read since Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.
materiagratias 3 years ago 7
To me, Straw Dogs was very much like a revelation. I cannot say that I fully share Gray's grim view of mankind, but I find his writing very refreshing and challenging. One should read such a book every year.
MScaurus 3 years ago 12
Neither can I say I agree on everything Gray says or writes, but I respect greatly his courage to say things straight and clear. I also think we need real much grim honest thinkers like him. Over optimistic humanism alone can be also very destructive and lead to delusions that cause unnecessary misery and pain to far too many...
materiagratias 3 years ago 8
No comparison with Dawkins who is essentially a proselytising fantasist. Gray isa powerfully informative voice on the folly of supposing that liberal humanism has any profound comprehension of human nature.
tigerarmyrule 2 years ago
I would tend to disagree. Rational anarchism would be much more favorable than an authoritarian establishment. There were anarcho-syndicalist communes in Spain during the Spanish Civil War during the 1930's that were able to function well enough to convince George Orwell of its merit. With the lack of authoritarian structures, society would eventually create order without the oppression of authoritarian/totalitarian governments. For exable syndicalism or collectivism would generate order.
Blitzberg86 3 years ago
The problem with Iraq lied with its people. The only thing holding Iraq together was a brutal tyrant. When Saddam was gone, law & order was on hold, and so the different factions fueled by religious fanaticism, politics, ethnicity, or tribalism boiled over and created havoc. You see, under dictatorship it's hard to learn how to respect others and their differences without having a boot in your face telling you that you should.
theforeigner85 3 years ago
i feel that a big part of the problem is the illusion that you can 'give' democracy to people. the succesful democracies of the world have been fought for by the people, people who had to work with and compromise with folks of differing opinion to reach a common concensus to achieve thier goals. when they bypass the process of working with each other to gain freedom then the results of the gained freedom are no more than a material prize, a cheap reward, a thing to demand like sweets for a child
lampyman101 3 years ago
Well, I think a huge part of the problem was foreign interference, such as Iran with the Shia, they armed the most radical Shia to kill U.S. troops and Islamize Iraq. Then there's Syria who most likely supported the remnants of the Baathists to topple the new government and kill U.S. troops, and lastly Al-Qaeda who target Shia, secular Sunnis and U.S. troops.
It's the age of war by proxy.
I'll tell you though, the Kurds fought alongside U.S. troops since the beginning, and are thankful.
theforeigner85 3 years ago
in part i can agree. foreign interference is part of the problem but the fact that the iraqi's themselves did not need to cooperate to overthrow saddam means that they never had to work together (with the give and take that involves) and build a relationship. suddenly they were handed a stake in government and all they wanted was as much power as possible for thier own faction. The foreign elements are merely exaserbating the problem by inreasing an existing tension between the various groups
lampyman101 3 years ago
equating theocracy to anarchy is ignorant. dude might be smart, but he obviously has not studied anarchy beyond his indoctrination.
cozmikzen 3 years ago
He means it in the 'chaos' sense.
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
Authoritarian dictatorships put A TON of stress on the dictator himself.
zenophas 3 years ago
"mixature of anarchy and theocracy" lol This guy has no idea what anarchism is.
overmind25 3 years ago
Anarchists responding to this video are missing the point. He is saying that in some circumstances a dictatorship is worse than anarchy. Anarchy means disorder. He doesn't mean a hypothetical thought out democratically chosen anarchy. You guys are so passionate about anarchism that you respond in a knee jerk fashion to any critique of your political ideology.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Correction "dictatorship isn't worse than anarchy". I have anarchist leanings because of the corruption in almost every government I know. However I think human beings are too combative and competitive for anarchism to be practical. I admit I haven't researched anarchism as much as some on YouTube but you guys need to take criticism on board instead of saying "He doesn't understand anarchy". Especially when this isn't what this video is about.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Anyway. This video(or fora tv) is a critique of liberal humanism. The full video is 50+ minutes long on Fora.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
"Especially when this isn't what this video is about. "
Some fault lies with the poster of this video and the title. They mean the anarchy=disorder distinction and not the anarchy you believe in.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
I do take criticisms but know I think I see that he wasn't speaking about the lack of coercion anarchism. If he was this was a terrible way to represent it and would be a complete strawman.
overmind25 3 years ago
*but now I think
overmind25 3 years ago
"...he wasn't speaking about the lack of coercion anarchism..."
Yes. I don't think he was. He was using the word anarchy is the common language usage meaning societal disorder.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Btw, any argument you make against human nature applies to those in the state as well and does not establish a reason for a state since there are humans "running" it and it really even magnifies the problem for statists since humans under non voluntary states have coercive backed monopolies.
overmind25 3 years ago
"Btw, any argument you make against human nature applies to those in the state..."
My argument takes into account the impracticality of getting from the current situation to one which you would like.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Accually all you did was make an argument against human nature. That doesn't do any good because it is humans in the government that have a a monopoly of power.
overmind25 3 years ago
*power when it comes to law making and governing within a given geographic area.
overmind25 3 years ago
I am not arguing against human nature. I accept human nature. Or I accept the differences in human nature that make me think anarchism won't happen unless we rid the world of a lot of it's ills. Additionally I am sceptical that we will be able to that do.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Well if he is not speaking about anarchism containing that meaning and not the absence or resistance against coercion than I would agree with you. However, voluntarism is not exactly a political ideology but a lack of a forced one unto others. I have my own personal political ideologue but I recognize it is not my right to force it unto others. Btw, I don't exactly know what you mean by democratically chosen anarchism.
overmind25 3 years ago
"Btw, I don't exactly know what you mean by democratically chosen anarchism. "
How else would you propose we adopt anarchism. Through force?
Mjhavok 3 years ago
no.... Having it done democratically is having to beg others to have your freedom. The force is forcing others to live under your system when they commit no aggression. A way it can be done successfully is speaking to people about how modern statism is imperialism against indiviuals.
overmind25 3 years ago
This is an excellent viewpoint - but the question remains HOW do we get people to stop throwing away their own power - how do we get the 80% who don't vote to start realizing how deadly important it is to DO SOMETHING to find solutions?
voteforpeace08 3 years ago
this is utter nonsense and anarchy is not anomy
the state is universally foisted upon people with no option to opt out, it's the legalised use of force
i'd love to debate this guy
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
Precisely why must I accept Mr. Gray's definition of anarchy and then presuppose, as he does, that it is a bad thing only to be supplanted occasionally by the truly unbelievable dictators of the past?
I don't necessarily suppose anything to be preferable to anarchy, nor do I consider anarchy to be an inherently bad thing.
And Jinjin, you have defined anarchy as chaos, and for that, you are a retard. That is equivocation.
Redfingers 3 years ago
CHECK OUT RON PAUL!! Youtube is full of great Ron Paul videos. If personal freedom and limited government is what interests you, you will LOVE Ron Paul.
SewerKitten 3 years ago
john seems to be lacking in spirit.
befranklintoo 3 years ago
This guy doesn't know what he's tlkin about. First, we were going to go into Iraq no matter who was the president, they voted for that in the 90s. Second, anarchy is way better than authoritarianism. No matter how many people are hurt as a result of anarchy is not the point, it is the fact that they have freedom to control their own lives. if people live in a truly anarchistic society where all forms of coercion are abolished, then there is little chance of mass murder and death.
HarryNRubin 3 years ago
And if wishes were horses we'd all ride to work. Pure ideologies are impossible to put into practice. In the old Iraq as difficult as it was under Hussein you at least knew how to conduct yourself in order to survive. Now you have hundreds of violent groups all hell bent on getting their way and no matter what you do you will upset one faction or another to the point that they want to kill you. What control do these people have over their lives when some extremeist can take it away in a second?
anothergazman 3 years ago
i would rather live in a society where i can defend myself and have freedom than a society where i do not control my own life, but have the security that my life will be spared.
HarryNRubin 3 years ago
So would I, but the fact is that in some cases the dictators can provide better security and society than an anarchy. Even democracy is not freedom, after all you have laws to obey. The "freedom" bought to Iraq now means that it is no longer safe to walk the streets, foreign armies are occupying their land and countless groups with different agendas are now free to do what they will. Ain't freedom grand?
anothergazman 3 years ago
HarryNRubin: Sorry to break it to you, but Santa doesn't exist.
merdufer 3 years ago
well im jewish and hanukkah harry does exist :D. and anothergazman: what ever happened to give me liberty or give me death... I am not saying that the Iraqis are living in anarchy, they aren't but to live in anarchy peacefully every1 has to agree on anarchy. people need to be educated for that to happen and they need to be taught that no one is better than anyone else and no one has the right to control others.
HarryNRubin 3 years ago
How do you make sure that no one controls another? You can only achieve that by control, I'm afraid.
merdufer 3 years ago
"to live in anarchy peacefully every1 has to agree on anarchy"
Therin lies the problem, who decides the rules of this anarchic society. Is it ok to do anything you want to further your situation or are there limits and who imposes them. To live peacefully in a society you have to give up certain libertys, the freedom to kill is the freedom to be killed. We can see what pure anarchy is because its living large in Iraq now.
anothergazman 3 years ago
anarchy litterally means without leaders so NO ONE would lead in an anarchic society, people would run their own communities
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
Exactly! Tribal law is what is being advocated here. We all know how well that works out in the middle east. And without leaders how is anything supposed to get done? Societies cannot run without leaders. Who in the community would organise the community? How would they decide who runs things? How does a community organise infrastructure or social care without leadership? Without people calling the shots, society would be quite simply crippled. You cant run every aspect of society by commitee.
anothergazman 3 years ago
if you are serious about having answers to those questions there is a long history of thinking to answer all those questions and some great channels which explain anarchy very elloquently on here, check out stefbot, anarchosquirrelist and would say confederalsocialist but unfortunately i think his channel is temporarily suspended
there are very rational answers to all those questions
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
Thank you, I am always serious when asking this sort of question. So far though I've always had frankly idealistic, incomplete and naieve answers that would never work in real life. I will check them out now.
anothergazman 3 years ago
well to be honest we see statism as utopian and idealist
the argument of "people are bad and so they need a government to keep them in check" is immature because when you have a legal monopoly of force, which is what the state is, all the bad people are only going to want to get control of it and use it to serve their own ends, and thats exactly what we see happening
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
I never said people were bad. the problem lies in the fact that people have different solutions to all problems. the lack of leadership would mean that even the simplest problems would be bogged down in argument. This is why we have government. We elect someone to control the minutia and the issues that require decisivness (road maintainence, hospital building, law passing etc). Democracy ISN'T perfect,but do you you think thousands of mini-governtments will work better or be less corrupt?
anothergazman 3 years ago
I never said you did but it's a common argument
it's good that people have different solutions to problems, and it's better that decisions are made in the local community instead of by a centrally elected government that have litterally no expertise in putting their decisions into practice
this would allow all these different solutions to be tried by the common feeling of people in different areas, the solutions created by the best run communities would soon be univeralised
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
Ok, thats called local goverment we already have that. Central government is there for stuff that requires uniformity at a national level. With anarchic communities how would you ever organise national projects? How would decisions be made and by who(surely not everything will be voted on)Its true that our current system needs serious work but I think it's at least in the ball park. We can vote, protest and affect law at the civilian level. Do you have any examples of an anarchic nation working?
anothergazman 3 years ago
there wouldn't be a nation and therefore no national projects only projects on varying scales between voluntary colaboraters
decisions would be made based on what was needed an enacted by local people themselves rather than deferring to a wasteful authority who overtax them then squander the money because there is no accountability or competition in public services so year upon year the budget requires higher taxation
voting is close to a waste of time
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
So no public roads, health service, police, fire service or educational system, i'm not sure you're really selling this to me. All these things in order to be practicle have to come from a bigger system than a local one. How could a village afford to supply all these things alone?
Again, Would every decision require a vote and if not who makes those decisions?
Competition in public services? So do you want a private fire service or nhs that'll charge you when you are at your most vulnerable?
anothergazman 3 years ago
no public roads, they would be provided on a need basis and just as well because there are far too many roads right now, rail would be more prevalent because it's cheaper and more efficient, only the existence of state accomodates such irresponsible building of infrastructure
enducation would be created in the community to serve the needs of the community, right now we don't ahve an education system but an indoctrination system that teaches very few practical skills, that would quickly change
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
I'm sorry but you're talking about an infrastructure that would collapse (backwater towns would get cut off quickly due to lack of demand) unregulated education would provide wildly different standards so no one would know what a qualification means not to mention the lack of funds in smaller communities would mean less teachers and resorces. Universal healthcare has to be funded and it is VERY expensive and distributed over the whole country. It can only be afforded with a universal tax!
anothergazman 3 years ago
there would almost certainly still be universal healthcare because most people want to live in a world where they can be assured they will be treated when they're ill, it would also be a lot cheaper to provide because there would be no centralised beaurocracy and it would be run by the people working in the industry who knew how to do it rather then a top down approach from managers who are oftentimes disconnected from the real machinations of what goes on in the service industry
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
All of this would rely on everyone of the thousands of commune groups coopeating and have the same agenda and plan. Essentialy you would by necessety have to form a governing body to organise the whole thing and collect taxes in order to ensure everyone who benefits from this pays their share or charge on an individual basis. Disparate groups are simply not capable of being organised enough to create and run such a system.
anothergazman 3 years ago
there usually wouldn't be votes except within the bounds of private agreements, things would just emerge because people would become more and more in the habbit of runnign their own communities,
all the progress you see around you is not owed to the state, infact the state is a parasite on the side of it, everything we have we have because we as a people strive towards creating these things to make our lives easier, they are entirely emergent and do not require a centralised government
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
Also some groups will not agree that universal health care should be a priority, the richer communities may feel that they would rather pay for their own healthcare, everyone else be damned. The anarchy doctrine relies absolutley on everyone having the same sense of community, this in reality is not going to happen. with one governing body the acceptable compromises can be reached.
anothergazman 3 years ago
We warned them,cheney and rumsfeld drove them on, few would listed or cared....get over it, American people are powerless to stop it.
Such is the state of the voting public who choose there leader like beauty queens or movie stars and wont even make the politicians pass an IQ test.
ubuibiok 3 years ago
Hell, 2/3rds of the voters cant even find Iraq on a Map...less the 22 percent can find Afghanistan so use you arguments on the USA voters right to vote, 70 percent shouldn't be allowed to vote.
IQ Pre-Voting Poll test, that 1 issue would clear up a lot of the world problems almost overnight.
ubuibiok 3 years ago
What if I decide to the set the IQ limit above your own?
Seriously, you don't see a problem with that?
Mjhavok 3 years ago
No, for a Fact, If I was limited out, You wouldn't have had Bush 43 as a President.
ubuibiok 3 years ago
I wonder if he ever gets mistakenly booked to speak at "Men are from Mars" functions
Andybaby 3 years ago
anarchy is awesome. no government telling people what to do, society's functioning on purely voluntary basis. Anarchy would be awesome. There has never been anarchy before because a tyrant always fills the void.
ferrozm 3 years ago
yes your neighbors stealing from you. gangs in your streets so you cant go out, your women cant go out in the fear of getting raped. that sounds great.
jinjin16 3 years ago
its better than government doing that to you.
nader85021 3 years ago
Fucking Yanks always says the same bloody thing dont you. Dont talk to me about comparing which is better when you haven't lived in a country where you cant walk outside your door step because you can might get mugged, killed (literally). Always about democracy and freedom. Well you dont have any - you haven't had any of these for decades. You are living in a mirage and defending it like the Nazis did with their freedom. You Country is seen as the new NAZIS.
jinjin16 3 years ago
UK is a police state too so I wouldn't be talking you stupid limey. And besides in America that wouldn't happen because private citizens own lots of guns. An armed society is a polite society.
ferrozm 3 years ago
Spoiled fucking brats the lot of yous. None of you have any idea what its like living in rich country like UK or US - maybe in the next couple of years when the shit truly hits the fan then you can crave how good you had it. Ever wonder why so many migrants come to your country in the UK from places like Africa, Mid East, Bad parts of Asia - it aint for the Fish & chips and weather. Do you hear them complaining?
jinjin16 3 years ago
jinjin, wake up dude. The government is not the people. Just because the thugs in power are hypocrits doesn't mean the people can't talk about ideals.
chris3443 3 years ago 2
Well thanks for the wake up call - such a cliche thing to say by the way - the Government is not the people - really - i didn't know that - now I am enlightened.
Hears a reality check. The reason why the Government get away with so much because all people do is fucking talk.
How about this - Cheney just admitted he gave orders to torture prisoners on an TV interview. What do people do? Just talk - infact they hardly complained. It's like Cheney saying to you - what you going to do about it?
jinjin16 3 years ago
You don't need to convince me about the evils of government jinjin, I am an anarchist. 顺便问一下， 你是中国人吗？看到了"jinjin"似乎是汉语名字. One person can't throw down a government, it's true. But we can live our philosophies in our own lives, and talk to other people we know.
chris3443 3 years ago
You have no idea what anarchy means. For you anarchy is some punk sex pistols lets rebel against the government pussy shit. No one if they know what they are talking about - no one wants anarchy, especially if you are in the midst of it. Hear what I say and stop being an ideological brat. Do you get that!? Find another ideology that is worth following. I have been in the middle of chaos and no sane person would want that repeated. Understood.
jinjin16 3 years ago 4
"You have no idea what anarchy means" oh ok, I'm glad you know more about what I know than I know myself. "no one wants anarchy," I do. " I have been in the middle of chaos " Besides the obvious misnomer that your personal experiences have nothing to do with anything as far as theory goes, anarcho capitalism is the opposite of chaos. After reading your posts, I'm rather tempted to suggest you yourself haven't looked into what anarchy means. Anarchy is not a synonym for chaos.
chris3443 3 years ago
You're wasting my time. Fuck off now lad. How's that for chaos.
jinjin16 3 years ago
lol ok, just so long as you know it's you who's running away from the argument.
chris3443 3 years ago
worthless video. How about a non-strawman argument about anarchy?
chris3443 3 years ago
I don't think he intended to argue against anarchy in the form you mean. He meant no government rather than pure democracy.
Unfortunately anarchy has come to mean something entirely different then its intended definition.
That doesn't make his point less valid. Chaos is certainly bad, and can be worse than tyranny.
flamablesteve 3 years ago
Good point. The meanings associated with the word are misleading --- much like Objectivism's "selfish". Both terms represent quite good theories, but are misinterpretted because of secondary or tertiary meanings associated with the words.
chris3443 3 years ago
Yes, when you say anarchy you mean a democratically agreed anarchy that people actually want. Not a lawlessness that has been forced on a society.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
For an excellent video on anarchism check out watch?v=zALI5lMnsoo
I'd like to see some material like this from Foratv, if they're going to put out videos on anarchy they should give both sides of the argument.
Luke12000 3 years ago
When he says anarchy he doesn't mean what you promote.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
I agree with most of what he says.
Sr. Bush doing better, Not likely.
On the other hand, the reason they are throwing shoes and making clear they want us out is because we fucked up their country "for generations" and they realize it.
So the question of this video is valid, "Anarchy or Authoritarianism: Which is Worse?"
They did have tyranny, but WE MADE IT WORSE!
We in the US should follow the founders wisdom . Stay out of entangling alliances and mind our own business.
It can get worse.
vudumojo 3 years ago
Comparing Iraqi occupation, martial law, govt ownership & especially foreign ownership to anything remotely resembling anarchy is beyond ignorant. It simply speaks to his agenda. However, in some instances, dictatorships are better than corrupt democracies which allow bankers and foreigners to control an economy.
proteanview 3 years ago 5
He means anarchy as in chaos. He doesn't mean anarchism.
I hope.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
If he is it doesn't make any sense. Of course chaos is worse than dictatorship. If he means chaos then he's stating the obvious.
It'd be like me giving a lecture about the sky being blue.
cujothekitten 3 years ago
The sky isn't always blue :-)
It doesn't seem to be obvious to everyone or there would have been no invasion of Iraq. Watch the full thing on fora before you pass judgement.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
useless bloody looney
jtr3030 3 years ago