So You Want a Free Society? Introducing Dual Power in a Nutshell

[InvincibleNumanist]

take this off unlisted you faggot

[JCatalyst]

Dual Power Revolution!

triple-dub generalassembly.Us

[ClaireSapphyck]

Abso ***kin lutely. This is the way forward is the way I already see things, and you can see that Occupy LSX has already started this with its Bank of Ideas.

Basically you can only work with what you've got, so create something new that works for you and don't hang around waiting for 'demands' to be met because they won't or they will be subverted by the crooked cartel controllers. Their system is falling apart so we have to resort to autonomy and self reliance, human ingenuity.

[seigneurvoland666]

why is it unlisted?

[roguedjinn]

Isnt it a fallacy to claim that the idea lacks merit because of somebody else who agreed with it? Anarchists do NOT favor Leninism. However, you cant deny his tactics made revolutions succeed. Counter institutions are not abusive or tyrannical. Also, Lenin borrowed from Anarco-Syndicalist tactics which existed first....he only coined a label for it. It was ALWAYS the Anarcho-Syndicalist approach.

[FightToUnderstand]

Great vid, thanks for opening this up for me. Keep up the great work. (a)

[fizzphoenix]

This is an idealistic concept that would be doomed to collapse even if its implementation were even possible. The nature of human beings to be devious and greedy would have to be completely taken out of the equation for this to work or "cliquish" concentrations of power would develop causing discontent invariably leading to a civil upset and collapse of this societal model. The collapse would cause a power vacuum which would no doubt be filled with the power clique who was the most ruthless.

[PinkProgram]

Anarchy is counterproductive... humans seldom reach an equilibrium.

[SecularNumanist]

@PinkProgram therefore force

[SecularNumanist]

this is a great video :)

[LordDracha]

great video, fascinating concepts.

But it does seem like having two lines of institutions rivaling one another could be a primer for civil war...

[LaughingMan0X]

@LordDracha

The idea is not rivaling alternative and counter institutions but rather having them as two sides of the same coin. I see no necessary reason to draw any strict dichotomy between them.

[LordDracha]

@LaughingMan0X

I am not referring to the alternative and counter institutions rivaling each other, but these institutions versus the status quo institutions...i.e. a food co-op competing with a Kroger, or, to use a more potentially violent scenario, a "people's protection committee" trying to perform the same duties as the established police. This seems to me like a probable precursor for violence and civil strife.

[Shrunkenhead61]

Alternatives sound like free markets. As for institutions, I think that's just bad. Institutions tend to indoctrinate. Why do I have to even go to a building in general? That just straps me down. Such as school. Can't it be hand-me-down knowledge and travel to other little groups (nomadic) and synthesize knowledge for yourself? I think specialization and experts make me more dependent on them. Trust someone who gets paid by someone else...

[BearWindAppleyard]

If I was/am going to be revolutionary, I definitely prefer this kind of revolution, both the means and the end.

[AnonIsAMiss]

My question is how to protect the counter institutions from infiltration of psy ops members of the government. You know that they will become aware of what's happening so you create the counter institution to protect the alt institutions but I don't imagine it would be hard to plant sleepers in place of what would seem to us to be high value friendlies that we are likely to recruit, then they end up swaying our side, causing our efforts to disperse etc.

Counter measures?

[bozepravde15]

tl;dr

[MononofuBlood]

Nice video. What the hell is up with this, though?

"Tags: ...Tits, Ass...Bruce Lee"

Haha.

[fede2]

what exactly are "free schools"? are they a different category from private schools?

[MidnightEyEs85]

This is an idea created by Lenin. Whether or not it actually has any merit does not matter, look how good the conservatives are at creating a stigma that makes liberals squeamish. Liberal is still a bad word in the US, and so is socialism and communism. Those words were as bad as terrorist 50 years ago and the tone has not changed all that much. Do you know how much the social climate would have to change to even consider this?

[LaughingMan0X]

First: although originally a rough conception the idea was created by Lenin in his pamphlet: "what is to be done" the idea has been radically changed since then. Moreover dual power (in an anarchist context) Dual Power means something very different then it does for Marxists (i.e. a decentralized participatory and voluntarist strategy VS top-down centralized authoritarian one).

Secondly, the very point of dual power is to change the social climate (gradually) from within the statist society.

[mikem1234]

@LaughingMan0X You might be interested in post-Marxism. Basically accepts worker self-government without the need for a top-down state and centralized authority.

[TheLeftLibertarian]

In the US, I think people should give up anarcho-syndicalism as a method for social change. If we lived in Europe, where union rates are high, I would promote it. As far as I can tell, Dual Power is our only hope in the US. I think anarchist here should promote this idea more. Excellent video, John!

[GuiMarquito]

well, in Europe you have to face all the liberal anti-communists lol

[KenCat1337]

I'm not done with the video yet, but something came to mind. All this talking about competition and giving the consumer choice may come off as capitalism to some people.

I am in favor of dual power, but it may be misrepresented by other people. How can we change that?

[jeffbme]

I am proud of your research. What I don't like is that older folks would have to gradually be unbrainwashed instead of abra cadabra. If you could include unbrainwashing institutions then that would be cool. Kinda goes with the freedom of choice in groups you mentioned. urwelcome

[downlowfunk]

Go back to Russia Commie. We aint gonna join your obama dictatorship.

[CrawdaddyJoe]

Downlowfunk: He's an anarcho-communist or anarcho-collectivist. By definition, he is not in favor of dictatorship. He probably also dislikes Obama about as much as you do, albeit for different reasons. Russia, for the record, was, by the definition of communism by any communist other than the Bolsheviks, supremely un-communist.

[Tuppington]

i don't see how a free school would be fair. it takes labor to teach so shouldn't you be rewarded for that?

[JimmiBaez]

Education should be free. It requires labor and work to do *everything*, even if you enjoy it.

[Tuppington]

so you advocate a kind of anarchist communism i presume, where there are only the rewards of the deeds. do you think there would arise a natural incentive to do strenuous labor or to become specialized in a profession taking up years of study? how would that happen? i suppose people might go to the storehouses and give some of the collective wealth to the heavy-lifters, but that's more mutualist than communist, right?

[JimmiBaez]

Yes I'm for anarcho-communism but I often just say anarchism. I don't believe in rewards, I don't believe people should be rewarded for doing what they should be doing in the first place. Yes, the natural incentive to do 'strenuous labor' would be the fact that in my view of anarchism, everything would be free. By this I mean there would be no monetary system and no currency, if anything there would be vouchers in which they would represent the amount of time you worked/studied for or

[JimmiBaez]

something similar. The economic system of anarchism implemented into society would, in my opinion, be based on that of anarchist Spain. People like to give the argument that some jobs are so disgusting/terrible that no one would want to do them and this is obviously untrue, as is that of specializing in a profession 'taking up years of study' -there are those who would love to dedicate their lives to studying and working in a certain field, either way there exists the fact that they wouldn't

[JimmiBaez]

just have to be exclusively dedicated to one field of study or one particular profession.

[Tuppington]

how would this voucher system work?

[JimmiBaez]

I'm very skeptical and unsure of it. I mentioned it because it's worked very well in the past (at least in anarchist Spain) but I would rather that an anarchist economy be a mixture of the barter system and a gift economy. The thing about the voucher system to me is that it opens up the doorway to hierarchy and ranks. Those who seem to work or study more will have more than those who don't because they can't and things like that. You could argue that the voucher system would be used as

[JimmiBaez]

an incentive- but then it might as well just be currency.

[Tuppington]

well, if you're going to have bartering, currency would also come in handy, no? that way I don't have to figure out how many apples equal one T-Shirt.

Where is the drive going to come from to devote one's self to arduous labor or heavy study if you will have nothing to show for it other than a title before your name?

[fede2]

maybe anarchist free educations is the best alternative but i don't think it means that private schools are necesarily superior to public schools. ("private" and "public" in terms of the mainstream usage).

[LaughingMan0X]

The problem with this is:

1) it legitimates the state in the eyes of others via our participation

2) It assumes the state is willing to allow people to opt out

3) Assumes state Institutions can be reorganized to be participatory

It supposes far to much, and has some nasty potential for consequences

Furthermore, why is this necessary? If we set up OUR own Public Alternatives the public can participate in, then it: supports, creates, and legitimates the anarchist alternative to state-capitalism

[LaughingMan0X]

That's like saying: how can you make decision-making in corporations less top-down more participatory, and the only answer to that is: get rid of them

Granted that the coercive state institutions: Military, Judiciary, IRS, FED, Regulatory Agencies, Police, etc, take first priority

However, the state is an institution predicated on theft and domination. No State institutions will willing forfeit power. They must be forced into a position where they must concede power or be forcibly occupied

[InsurgenistCujo]

Is the general union of anarchists refer to what Nestor Makhno wrote in his "Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists?"

[LaughingMan0X]

The spirit of it is the same, and I've borrowed the essential idea of the GUA (and some related bits) from Makhno; then again, some of what makhno wrote in the platform borders on bolshevizing anarchism (anarchists like Malatesta also called him on this).

So you could consider my use of his ideas amounts to both a pragmatic modernizing update, and a libertarianizing update.

[7omnia7]

Very interesting!

Some of these "alternatives" already exist, at least at global level.

But I have my doubts that an existing centralized institution will permit sharing power! Somethings can only be gained through force.

[LaughingMan0X]

Which is why when the existence of alternative institutions and counter institutions hit a critical mass, the members of these institutions can impose upon the state a choice: concede power, stop initiating theft and aggression upon the public, and make way or a free society, or, be defeated via the defensive use of violence against the coercive institutions of the sate to preserve the interests of liberty.

[Tuppington]

beautifully said

[abortabraham]

You're right, they are not inherently bad, but they are not "good", they in fact can and should be made better, and that is done through making them more responsible through anarchism.

[LaughingMan0X]

I don't think that "Non-Statist" Libertarian Models for: Public education, Health programs, and Sewage treatment are bad things.

It's the state, a coercive monopoly on violence imposing these types of service monopolies on the public that I object to.

I think there's a semantic gap here, because I don't consider "State Institutions" to be public institutions or any kind. They are neither made up or nor represent, nor do they have the consent of: the public.

[brainpolice2]

Non-capitalist anarchists also say yes, but not in the same sense as anarcho-capitalists. Noone objects to the provision of such functions or services, what they object to is the statist and/or coercive means. And "private" in the hyper-exclusive sense that ancaps advocate isn't the only alternative to state provision.

[brainpolice2]

I think you might be a bit confused, because noone is objecting to the *functions* of those things or the services in and of themselves, they're objecting to the *means* with which they are provided. What's proposed here is precisely an alt. way of providing those same functions or services.

[VirtualHolocaust]

great video not that i completely understand yet but some of the ideas proposed were nice

[abortabraham]

There are different "forms" of anarchism (depending on who you talk to). To get a better understanding of the idea here its probably a good idea to look at earlier anarchist movements, particularly Spain. Here is a good starting place

/watch?v=naFl66sPbTk

Caution: this may be considered ancap blasphemy.

[LaughingMan0X]

Remember you can always ask me questions.

Also I shall be making additional videos on Dual Power shortly, while introducing the concept (and relevancy) of a General Union of Anarchists.

[LaughingMan0X]

State: An entity, with a monopoly on violence constituted over a given territorial area.

No we don't oppose the formation of laws, arbitration, and rights. Just the oppose in fact. As provisions outlined in a voluntary social contract they can be justified under anarchism; & the fact that they are necessary in defense of liberty, and for economic efficiency should be obvious.

[I did a video on Anarchist law outlining some basic functional principles of this which you should check out]

[LaughingMan0X]

I don't oppose public institutions that are voluntary (non-statist), I sympathize with and support a number of them in fact

In a genuinely anarchist society, one may decide to write up a voluntary social contract that creates a public trust based on X% of the yearly income of the signatories. This public trust could extend to public: education, infrastructure, roads, health care, etc

I actually think that healthy competition between a number of public industries as optimal for utility purposes

[LaughingMan0X]

I'm in favor of Anarchist-Free-Schools, which (generally) may be seen a open participatory public forum for education. Yes, I'm in favor of getting rid of state education (although I agree that undermining the coercive institutions of the state are a first priority).

However this word "private" is kind of loaded. If by private one means: non-statist, then I agree, if by private they mean: propertarian or exclusionary, I may have extreme to moderate reservations.

[XOmniverse]

Don't you love how simply using economic terminology to describe economics automatically gets you labelled as a capitalist?

It's like simply recognizing that economic facts exist and must be taken into account is some kind of sin or something.

[LaughingMan0X]

The sad part is, the terminology I used was fairly basic, generalized, neutral, and non-idiosyncratic.

[brainpolice2]

I don't think that the hyper-exclusive model of such services favored by ancaps is the only alternative to state provision. That's part of the confusion here.

[legittoquit]

LM, you are a brilliant man but why do you insist on using language that caters to idiots? You might be one of a kind, but most of these people calling themselves "anarcho-socialists" are violent, economic illiterates oblivious to the violence of their own plans. I believe you will gain nothing from this.

[brainpolice2]

Practicality nobody really calls themself an "anarcho-socialist" - that's mostly a term used by "ancaps" to signify any anarchist that isn't an "ancap". And I don't think he is "catering" to social anarchists - he has been one for as long as I've known him.

[LaughingMan0X]

I don't think vulgar Anarchists on either end of the spectrum (vulgar an-com's -> vulgar propertarians) are the norm (although they are often the loudest)

I'm trying to appeal to everyone outside of that realm

I think (and shall be pushing for) a general consensus on rational consequentialist theories of: justice, property, and general organization (at least for the sake of removing the state, and achieving a voluntary society) would be preferable and necessary to effectively combat the state

[abortabraham]

I've found that the left and the right aren't all that different in the non-extremes, and usually only differ on property. Its important to recognize that they are at least just preferences (at most, logical truth). As its hard to qualify the efficiencies of syndicalism from the brief existence in Spain, "capitalism" will always try to reach for the monopoly on efficiency. The key here seems to be creating the conditions to refute this dogma, and from there, preference gains acceptance as truth.

[LaughingMan0X]

Well, there are the so-called (vulgar) right-wing Hans-Hermann Hoppen's who advocate monarchy as a transitory phase to democracy viewing it as a "lesser evil" that is somehow "more responsible"

Then on the (vulgar) left there are some an-coms who think that directly democratic workers councils should control everything; & that people should be compelled to go with the will of the majority, under threat of violence

However, that said, I think a number of vulgars don't appreciate their position

[LaughingMan0X]

And yes, this dogma state-capitalism has on efficiency is something that definitely needs to be refuted.

[doug12361]

Read Animal Farm. What you propose is like economics. It always looks good on paper but in practice you find opposing views, egos and will. What you propose is self destructive.

[LaughingMan0X]

Why is proposing the creation of a set of:

-decentralized self-managed, voluntary institutions as an alternative to:

-coercive, centralized, and overly authoritarian institutions

-necessarily self-destructive?

[doug12361]

That is rather vague. Define "overly authoritarian institution" please. Give me a couple of examples. What do you want to replace with what.

[LaughingMan0X]

Furthmore, I have read animal farm, and I fail to see how it is a valid analogy to what I'm advocating.

I'm not advocating: Bolshevism, Leninism, Centralization, or Authoritarianism of any kind (the very ideas animal farm was critiquing).

-This analogy falls apart.

[doug12361]

It doesn't fall apart. You specifically propose self policing. Citizen police. Do you have any concept of how quickly that can turn into a nightmare? You are assuming that everyone will be just like you. The fact is there are pepole whose self interest will lead them to grab whatever power they can. The analogy is sound, you are simply missing the point.

[doug12361]

The problem with this railing against capitalism is that is always done by people who can't compete in a free market and want everything handed to them in equal measure for free. And the flaw in that thinking, is the people who advocate capitalism and work for what they have, don't want to, and further should not have to share it because you want to live in a commune.

[LaughingMan0X]

*facepalm*

I'm railing against CORPORATISM, i.e. "STATE-CAPITALISM" (the only kind that has ever existed).

What kind of straw-man is this? Wanting stuff handed down to me for free? When or where have I ever advocated anything even remotely similar to this position? Who said anything about everyone having to live in a commune?

I see many assumptions and little evidence to back it up

I'm a Mutualist, I advocate a kind of free-market anti-capitalism based on proudianian conceptions of property

[brainpolice2]

This is a really vulgar armchair psychologization of why people have the political and economic ideologies that they do. It isn't necessarily the case that people who are for "capitalism" are "productive" or that people who are for "socialism" are "envious". That's such an oversimplification I don't know where to begin.

[abortabraham]

Gross mischaracterization, unfortunately that is what the right-wing has always pumped out.

[LaughingMan0X]

1) A group of individuals freely associate

2) Those individuals write up a voluntary social contract. (The process of signing up for a specific social-contract is competitive among a number of locals).

3) This contract creates a public trust, and a set of institutions funded by the trust, directly accountable to those who signed the contract.

4) On of these created organization is voluntary defensive organization (VDO).

5) VDO's paid social role is defending their consumers from aggression.

[doug12361]

Anarchy by definition: 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government. You don't want leaders but who enforces the contract? I'm trying to understand but so far, this sounds like folly.

[LaughingMan0X]

First off, I recommend researching Anarchism from proper books of political theory [Proudhon, Bakunin, Tucker, Spooner, Kropotkin] (or at least in an encyclopedia); dictionaries tend to have inaccurate or misleading definitions when applied to complex philosophical issues

First: No serious anarchists conceives of anarchism as Utopian: as Rudolf Rocker once said: "I am an anarchist not because I think that anarchism is the final goal, but because I think there is no such thing as a final goal."

[BearWindAppleyard]

@LaughingMan0X I like that quote

[LaughingMan0X]

Rocker's point is that the ends of Anarchism aren't some Utopian happy-go-lucky success fest where everything works all the time. It is susceptible to the same social problems that every other society is, despite having libertarian institutions to deal with them

To make an analogy: Anarchism isn't absolute curse for disease, it is merely a healthy lifestyle

1) Anarchism is: an absence of an entity with a monopoly on violence over a given territorial area; i.e. a state

2) Anarchism =/= Anomie

[BakuninCOL]

+5 Stars ^^

[legittoquit]

goddamn youtube chopping up comments

[Quag7]

OK I've been all pissed off at anarchists lately and was just about to pretty much lose all interest, and then I hit this video.

Smart fucking video. Right here - what you propose - is the best hope, and maybe in the USA the only hope - to pull something like this off. We have protoanarchist examples already working - food co-ops (one here in Tucson), credit unions, etc. 

What is needed now is to ratchet this up. No historical conditions must come about to get started; it can start now.

[LaughingMan0X]

Indeed, it can.

I also think a general union of anarchists who agree on a basic: theory of justice, property, and organization, can provide the structural foundation necessary for getting the levels of: organization, start-up-capital, and the general participation required to kick off new anarchist industries and projects.

Furthermore, I like your enthusiasm ^^

[fede2]

the problem i forsee here is that in creating competing institutions to those of the status quo, you are essentially entering the free market which's principle is consumer demand which is based on efficiency rather than equity. so you are bound to lose.

don't get me wrong. i like your idea in principle, i'm just very skeptical about it's success.

[LaughingMan0X]

"But will not life under anarchy, in economic and social equality, mean general leveling?" you ask. No, my dear friend, quite the contrary. Because equality does not mean an equal amount but equal OPPORTUNITY. It does not mean, for instance, that if Smith needs five meals a day, Johnson also must have as many.

[LaughingMan0X]

-continued "If Johnson wants only five meals while Smith requires five, the quantity each consumes may be unequal, but both men are perfectly equal in the opportunity each has to consume as much as he needs, as much as his particular nature demands."

[LaughingMan0X]

- "Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact."

Anarchism is equality of opportunity, not equality of condition.

And why are you skeptical of it's success?

[fede2]

dude, you missed my point entirely.

i think we'd both agree on our ultimate goals (i'm a libertarian socialist of sorts). what i'm skeptical about is this dual power as a TACTIC.

what i said was by presenting alternative institutions you are efectively competing with the existing ones. and if force is out of the question how do you expect to replace the original ones when efficiancy is bound to be on their side?

know what i mean?

[Quag7]

I work for a large multinational corporation which I think is representative of corporations as a whole.

I think people who make this argument severely underestimate their benefits in terms of efficiency. The principal benefit these institutions have are mountains of capital. But efficiency?

You wouldn't believe the stories I could tell you.

[brainpolice2]

What would the advantages be to explicitly working in the framework of the very institutions that you're opposed to though? That seems to have an obvious problem of playing by the rules and disincentivizing the very alternative that you're aiming for in the future, as well as the inherent problems associated with political and economic power structures to begin with. The incentives of such institutions are self-perpetuating.

[fede2]

"What would the advantages be to explicitly working in the framework of the very institutions that you're opposed to though?"

i'm not arguing from the worker's standpoint. i'm arguing from the consumer's stand point.

the consumer doesn't care if the effort behind his/her favorite product is fair, the consumer's only concern is the quality.

in a competition between a mini-mart against wallmart, which is the consumer bound to prefer?

[LaughingMan0X]

Indeed :D

[LaughingMan0X]

(Quote = from Alexander Berkman BTW)

This is why I'm proposing something called the general union of anarchists. I.e. an organization designed to subsidize, support, and give organizational assistance to new institutions. This type of organization would essentially be ONE BIG UNION

A formal Economic proto-union who can use union dues, organizing drives, and pooling of resources to sustain the capital investment necessary to start new industries; thus providing alternatives to: state-capitalism

[fede2]

so a union composed of people voluntarily gathered to sustain future alternative institutions, is that about right?

and this union is supposed to carry enough strength to max out a gov't? i'm not saying it's impossible it's just hard to wrap one's head around it.

[LaughingMan0X]

Actually the union I'm proposing is dyadic: a political and economic union. That serves as an organizing base (with a website and community institutions) that can incorporate people who want collective bargaining, worker protection, and all the benefits that come with it. However it also maintains the ability to incorporate people who traditional unions often excluded: students and the unemployed.

Furthermore, it merely ought to serve as a base for organizing new decentralized projects.

[abortabraham]

How closely was this plan to the revolution in Spain? Did they model their organizations after it or was it independent? Cause from what it sounds like, is laying the groundwork for the CNT, unless I'm misunderstanding. Also, working within the system is difficult sans revolution, i.e. current unions. Is it a logistics thing? What are the contributing factors that make this such an enormous task (other than ignorance/propaganda). I know its only the first video but I am intrigued.

[LaughingMan0X]

In a way you could draw similarities between the organizing efforts of the CNT and Dual-Power. The CNT offered collective barganing and worker protections, and helped organize self-sustaining communities, free schools, food co-ops, and the like. Thus creating a basic alternative institutional framework for organizing against the state.

I should also be making some points further outlining theory to praxis points on Dual Power. (although you're always free to PM me questions in further details)

[Quag7]

It's like the bully everyone thinks they can't beat up. Or the continent no one can cross. For so long people have felt at the mercy of these institutions they think they can't win.

But I think they can.  Because I think large institutions - big corporations, etc. - have some specific weaknesses that could give alternative new voluntary institutions a competitive advantage.

That is, if people can just believe, and organize, and get out there and do it. That's the hard part.

[fede2]

i see.

why do you work for a corporation?

[Quag7]

Money.

[Kbiomech]

Outstanding! 5 stars and favorited. And I can't wait for the followup either!

[norulers85]

greatstuff. i really need to post a new video but ,

a)the software i use has been playing up and

b) i've been a bit busy.

I certainly think dual power is the answer.

a gradualist approach to social change must be took.

[Stargazer5781]

Great video :-)

[lordmetroid]

Hmm, create a free society by instituting ones own institution and claim one belongs to the new society. Sounds like a good idea.

[TheoreticalShovenist]

Fantastic Video +5 Stars!

[Cres45]

Very important video. Congrats for your work!

[AndyMH182]

Good work

[CommonAsGrass]

Very good video. I enjoyed this immensely.

I'm glad to see you back, and I look forward to future videos.

[brainpolice2]

Haven't seen you make a video for a while. This is a great summary of the dual power concept (which is really the social anarchist version of agorism as far as I see it).

[darkother]

Hey, great video. This sounds like a much more realistic way for a social change than the Glorious Revolution.

And what's with all the Ancaps thinking this video is about you? It's not. When will you understand that our ideas are the total opposite?

[Cefuroxx]

what about a general union of anarchists on both the left and right?

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

I'm very curious as to how the terms "left" and "right" apply to anarchism.

To me, their only relevance is as a shorthand for describing the style of rhetoric employed by a group or individual. A more meaningful scale might describe the degree of moral legitimacy that a group or individual ascribes to the use of coercive force, with market anarchists on one end and the authoritarians on the other.

[abortabraham]

Its about property and usage. You can be market anarchist on both sides, as someone on the left, I believe it is more logically consistent to be a syndicalist while still influenced by competition. We prefer the full spectrum of "no masters".

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

Would you consider yourself a leftist then, as well as an anarchist? Because I'm not sure I know what that even means.

To me, the "left" and "right" are varieties of statism. The central principle is the same: "It is just that I murder to get what I want." The only real differences lie in their styles of rhetoric, and to a smaller degree in which and whose liberties they seek to destroy through expansion of the state.

But I take it that you have an entirely different understanding than I?

[abortabraham]

They are preferences. I am "leftist" because I have a Proudhonian interpretation of property. I view unfettered, absolutist propertarianism as a means to creating a state. Classical anarchists commonly held this view and I concur with the logic. Anarchism is not 1dimensional.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

That's very interesting. Myself, I view the state as that which infringes on property, or as that which claims monopoly on property.

When I attempt to model an emerging state, I describe a bank robbery. People with guns threaten with murder, in order to appropriate that which is not theirs. If the situation persists, then the Stockholm syndrome kicks in, and the hostages will ascribe legitimacy onto the robbers.

If you would care to expound on the term Proudhonian, then I'd appreciate it.

[abortabraham]

Individuals have rights to land that they are using or occupying. Small enterprise may be privately owned, people may be "self employed", but it is preferable for workers to organize coops, especially for larger businesses. Workers' self management.

Proudhon's logic is that property is theft. The idea is that I don't have to steal what is yours if I declare it mine before you do. Any property that is not defined by occupancy, use, or labor, is equivalent to divine right, a religious faith.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

So, when I defer consumption in order to generate savings, then that which I save ceases to be mine as soon as I stop using it? For instance, if I save up money and acquire a piece of real estate, and rent it out for revenue, then the house becomes the legitimate property of the tenants, even though those weren't the terms of our agreement?

Sorry if I'm being daft here, but these really are new terms to me, and I want to be sure that I understand what you're saying. Thank you for your patience.

[abortabraham]

If it is defined by labor, it is yours. That simple. The way to ensure that this is the case is to have workers coops. Instead of the capitalist expecting a cut of surplus value simply by granting others the permission to work, it is disseminated by those who produced the good. Land is not owned on the basis of declaration. It is easier to defer consumption when you have more money, that is why the "rich get richer" sans labor. LaughingMan probably has a better understanding than I do.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

So in the example where I bought a house, I can indeed rent it out, but if the tenants decide to use part of it as a workshop or a study from where they manage their business, then it is no longer mine? And if I had started a car rental business instead, would I need to screen against taxi drivers, so as not to "accidentally" lose entitlement to my cars?

Another problem is posed by new enterprise. When an entrepreneur acquires the factors of production for an enterprise,

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

then he treats labour as another factor. This way, the workers can be protected from risk, and paid a flat wage rate during the production process.

If that possibility is precluded, then the workers must be treated as entrepreneurs. They must subsist on savings or alternative sources of income during the production process, but if the enterprise succeeds, then they stand to share in the profit. Of course, if the enterprise fails, then they won't get paid at all, or might even end up indebted.

[Cefuroxx]

left: bakunin, kroptokin, durrutii

center: proudhon

right: spooner

all anti authoritarians and all of whom I respect and admire, left and right is trivial, the real distinction should be north/south, that is, opposition to illegitimate authority. I idebntify most closely with the leftwing elements of the syndicalist Spanish Anarchists, but market driven anti authoritarianism is something I can live with also.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

On the face of it, I couldn't agree more with the first half of your comment.

However, I have a great deal of difficulty with grasping "leftist"-anarchism. It seems to me that, if you want to have a venture where every worker is treated as a full partner, and shares equally in the risk and reward of enterprise, then you could have that in a free market society. If, on the other hand, you want that to be the only permissible model of production, then... How can you enforce that without a state?

[Cefuroxx]

It doesn´t have to be coercively forced, it´s the preference of the individuals who are voluntarily entering into economic arrangements with what is tied to their labor, i´m not in favor of forced collectivization like leninism or bolshevism.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

I didn't necessarily mean to imply that you were, but if you look at the above conversation, for one, then that's kind of the feel that I'm getting. Obviously my counterpart does not consider such enforcement coercive, and I do possess a considerable degree of respect and gratitude for the patience he was showing, but when someone claims that a voluntary exchange of value is unfair or exploitative, then I really don't know what to do with that.

[Ilikenuman]

@Cefuroxx

id say the center also includes Tucker.

[Ilikenuman]

@Cefuroxx id put tucker there aswell. perhaps between spooner and proudhon

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

I've seen ideas very much like this one, not only in discussion, but also in practice, and I am excited at the prospects.

Right now, it's almost impossible to challenge a statist cartel. However, when such a feat is accomplished, the entrepreneur is usually well rewarded for his efforts, and a solid blow is struck against the legitimacy of the state.

When states around the world are forced to discontinue some of their services due to economic collapse, then Dual Power could really take off! : )

[AlaskanAnarchist]

Excellent video. My ONLY qualm with the whole thing is the part about participatory economic planning (which can mean a number of things). But, you made it very clear that this must be done voluntarily, and as such I have no real objections. 5 Stars.

[MentalEclipse]

Excellent video!

[RaymondDundas]

You sound like a laissez-faire capitalist.

[Peacehand]

No mention of capitalism?

Really?

The state is the arm, capitalism is the blade.

Do you wish to just switch the sword to a different arm?

[LaughingMan0X]

The state entails the state-capitalist system. State-sponsored capitalistic privilege is merely an extension of state violence, and it seems somewhat inappropriate to draw a strict dichotomy both items

Dual Power seeks to create alternative & counter-institutions to both of these authoritarian institutions; It seeks to undermine the power-structure of state-capitalism, by creating anarchist alternatives; reinforcing their productive and defensive capacities with with Counter Institutions

[Peacehand]

Indeed, the advantage of dual power is the creation of real, and not merely political, momentum towards the revolutionary transformation of society.

Yes political language often serves to obscure things.

When it isn't explicitly stated in ones political ideology to eliminate the mechanisms of capitalism, the state being just one, I do jump the gun so to speak.

Sorry Laughingman, so many Ancaps on youtube, perhaps i've misjudged Dual Power.

[NoCryingNowYes]

No, it seems he is beginning to understand real economics.

You can spout the "capitalism is evil" all you want, but bear in mind that you don't know what the word even means or how it came to be used as such.

[AlaskanAnarchist]

The word means a lot of different things to different people, just like socialism.

I'm assuming Peacehand is referring to capitalism as a system of legal privilege for an elite in society. What I don't think Peacehand either understands or at least agrees with is that in order for this legal privilege to exist, it much come from the state. With few exceptions, the state causes "capitalism". This is not to be confused with a truly free market, which can exist only when there is no state.

[Peacehand]

My political ideology is as such.

Any system that produces wealth inequality I can't support.

The "state" is not the sole apparatus of inequality in a given society.

I understand full well what I believe, so I would appreciate if you would stop the condescending attitude.

Thank you.

[NoCryingNowYes]

Inequality is natural. People are not born equal. They are better or worse at different things.

To make them equal by force is destructive, primitive and barbaric, and it's fueled by envy, not compassion.

[Peacehand]

As a thinking person, of course I know people are not biologically equal.

If you stop trying to educate me on the obvious, you will notice I was speaking first on foremost on the topic, that being economic inequality.

That economic ineuality is not natural.

It is not solely propagated by the state.

I would also not support any overtly violent actions in support of this ideal.

I would not myself deprive a person of their property.

I would however, question the mechanisms that produce it.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

"That economic ineuqality is not natural."

It's conceivable that some people simply work harder, better or more efficiently than others. This might easily comprise a natural economic inequality, as those individuals and what they produce will be in higher demand.

[brainpolice2]

Definitely. However, I think part of the problem lies in a tendency to treat the status quo as if it is a genuine meritocracy, when it clearly isn't. I think there are two false extremes of being an apologist for all degrees of heirarchy without consideration for social and political context on one hand, and acting like the starting point of society is absolute equality of condition.

[NoCryingNowYes]

Peacehand, I understand that you're not a bad person. You just don't understand economics. And that's fine. Keep an open mind. Read austrian economics, and tell me if things start making more sense.

mises(dot)org

user/misesmedia

user/confederalsocialist

user/austrolibertarian

etc etc

[Peacehand]

Another attack on my understanding of the issue?

I've levied none such attacks towards you.

As such, i'm done with this exchange for the moment.

Let the record show, five such attacks from your side, none from mine.

You have no idea if i'm a good or bad person from a couple youtube character restricted comments.

Lastly, I do take offense at your attitude.

What kind of argument is that?

If I don't subscribe Austrian ecocomics i'm misguided, stupid, or a bad person?

What a way to argue.

[NoCryingNowYes]

Austrian economics is the only school of economics that even attempts to explain how things are produced.

Couple that with a good deal of misinformation at the government owned or sanctioned education camps, and yes, I can guarantee, if you haven't read austrian economics, you won't understand how humans produce things in the post-agriculture world.

Your instincts are no good, as they've been shaped in a completely different economic environment. Hunter-gatherer tribes.

[Peacehand]

Ah, and you can take the full measure of my intelligence on a given issue from a youtube comment?

I never said it was evil, just an econmic system that produces hierarchy and class privilege.

So add something meaningful to the convo or apologize for your mischaracterization of myself.

The only person that doesn't know something is you at this point.

[NoCryingNowYes]

I didn't take the full measure of your intelligence, just your stance on capitalism as if it's something harmful.

Public property is harmful. When nobody owns something, nobody has an incentive to take care of it, and everyone has an incentive to be corrupt and use more than their "fair share", whatever that means.

Capitalism simply means The State leaves people alone to do as they wish with their bodies, property and labor.

By contrast, socialism means The State or collective controls it all

[NoCryingNowYes]

But of course politicians have used words like capitalism and free market to justify more government control and involvement in people's lives, and those who don't know any better believe their lies.

And when government fails, of course, they blame capitalism and free markets. They blame freedom for problems that The State generated. So this justifies more government.

It's brainwash and it's how they've managed to keep everyone under control for so long.

[Peacehand]

You barely know me for what like two or three comments and you call me brainwashed?

Thats twice you've spoken about things you know nothing about.

Like I said to AA in my previous comment above, I oppose any system, economic or otherwise, that would breed privilege and inequity.

I'm not hung up on the state like your claiming.

Its just alarming to see politically minded people miss the elephant in the room, namely capitalism.

[NoCryingNowYes]

I bet when you hear terms like capitalism and free market, you think of big corporations like Wal-Mart, Mcdonalds, Coca-Cola, the banking industry.

In reality, if The State stepped out of the way, these corporate giants could never compete with the ever improving projects of individuals.

That's why The State makes it illegal to compete with those who paid their campaign contributions and bribes.

Or it puts so many restrictions that it becomes virtually impossible to do it legally.

[Peacehand]

Eventhough you phrase it as a bet, here we are again, the fourth time you've tried to speak about things you know thing about.

Your gonna go for five right?

If so i'm done.

Instead of making shit up, why don't you just ask a person?

Needless to say, I do not restrict capitalism to just corporatism or the free market.

I support ideals that would eliminate wealth and privilege for the very few.

Capitalism, the state, corporatism are just mechanisms of such.

[ZamatoElite]

Great video. Very well made.

[Vaults101]

I see the LaughingMan has decided to grace us with his presence. Welcome back ^^

[overmind25]

LM RETURNS!

[abortabraham]

A triumphant return.