Anarchism 101: Lesson #2 - What's the Big Idea?

[theKockunge]

sorry but thats a crap way to use youtube. say something istead

[DesmondE]

More videos!!!!!!!!!!!!! These are great!!!!!!

[agents1986]

these videos are not very good. You can't explain a philosophy in 3 minute intervals with 20 sentences each. you might as well have just linked us to an ebook about anarchism.

[soyuski]

How come when u protest u force people into traffic jams. Seems like an inequality of mobility.

[GrumpyOldDude90]

@soyuski lol, you sound like the venezuelan government. Literally! they banned protests (violently, if the tear gas taste still in my mouth means anything) because they said they went against people's freedom of mobility!

Aside from the fun anecdote though, you are missing the point about equality.

[childofreletivity]

well i'm watching this because i'm looking for the meaning of communism anarchism capitalism and socialism

[omartheomar]

Sorry but really need to ask this question. What's the song in the background?

[Leftovervictim1991]

For true Anarchism check out the Venus Project

[Crazycuriosities]

this is not anarchy at all!!! Posing dick!

[Keiseroll]

Good video on anarchy. If you want a minarchist's opinion, check out minarchyunited (dot) blogspot (dot) com

[karoloandria]

@Keiseroll

MINARCHY?

get the fuck out!

[philnoll]

So what happens if I punch you in the face? Does your whole community ostracize me? How would you prevent an individual or group of people from obtaining power? Wouldn't organizations like mafia rise to the top of power? How could you combat them? You'd have to be police...

[LiberalofLiberty]

In order to Abolish the heiarchy you speak of, you need to abolish property and redistribute it. To do this you need a state. To have a state you need an elite few that will decide who gets what and who doesn't.

[ccfc73]

Not necessarily.

You can refuse to cooperate with the system by doing things like installing enough solar panels to go off the grid, growing your own food to get away from factory farming and such, refusing to get a drivers license, carrying out jury nullification, etc.

Get enough people doing that, and you create a critical mass that can challenge the authority of the state and corporations.

[LiberalofLiberty]

Assume statelessness exists... a division of labor would still occur naturally since it's usually more economical. Licensing i can agree with. But if everyone attempted to be self sufficient you would have to accept terribly reductions in standard of living.

[kaosstar]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding or property. When property is abolished, it would not be redistributed by some centralized agency, merely taken by those who have a right to it.

[LiberalofLiberty]

Ignoring the question of how you determine whether or not it is rightfully owned or not. are those that now take the 'abolished property' now property owners themselves?

[kaosstar]

They become possessors of land, items, whatever, but not of property.

[LiberalofLiberty]

This is why I can't buy into left libertarianism, i can't figure out the difference between ownership and property. I'm usually told the difference is that one is used to exploit and another is not, which isn't a satisfactory definition.

[watermel0n5]

anarchists are very silly people

[JimmiBaez]

I agree. There's no reason why everybody should be equal, there always needs to be social structure and oppression. Thank the Lord we have government!

[HotaruZoku]

It is my humble opinion that your going about this from the long way instead of the short. I agree utterly with the idea's presented, it's just that the road to the destination is...far more bumpy than it needs to be.

The idea presented is freedom stemming a lack of power anyone has over anyone else. While I understand what's meant, I believe it'd be far more useful to generate the Anarchist condition through not a -lack- of power, but an equality of ALL power. Instead of none, all have all.

[mlc34932]

anarchism is the only political belief on the planet stupider than nazism. people arent ever gonna be little fruitcakes frollicing around in the meadow we need to fight and without leaders to keep us in check thats all we will do. LOL there arent any laws or goverment in most of somalia how bout you faggots all go live there???

[DannyOKC]

Wise words from an obviously well-educated individual. We should all take a page from his or her book in the argumentation department. Ma'am, or sir--whichever the case may be--I salute you.

[mlc34932]

you damn well best bro

[HotaruZoku]

We -need- to fight.....but we -need- leaders to "keep us in check." How can we need to be limited from that which we need to be doing? That's like requesting a plastic bag over your head to limit the breathing you "need" to do.

[mlc34932]

since you like metaphors about breathing: its like when your under water, you need to breathe but if you do you will suck in water and die.

[HotaruZoku]

But in order for the entire thing to hold, it's all but required to hold humanity in a state of near contempt. What positive can be said about a species who's primary survival urge is to curtail the survival of others?

To each their own, I simply don't choose to view myself as some sort of half finished, ill considered Bio-Organic-Weapon who's closest experience to peace will only be as a caged, rabid dog under the warden's close supervision.

[mlc34932]

then be the warden dude......

[HotaruZoku]

There is wisdom in your answer, but all things are cyclical. One can not control others without submitting to their control in one way or the other. Your point's still valid though.

[mlc34932]

well we agree to disagree it seems mate

[5ag5]

that is why there is no bureocracy or someone else to keeps us in check. Anarchists believe in consensus democracy therefore, if someone was trying to be a smart ass, the community will keep him in check. If there was consencus not to chague the "idea", don't you think it was because the community that it was best to "follow" that idea?.

[Phlynx251]

First of, learn English, it will help. Secondly, stop being a moron, people still have the power to kill and fight, we don't need leaders for that.

[MrAmericanHardcore]

@mlc34932 anarchy meens no rulers and in somillia there are warlords that control the people and thats not anarchy

[MoonstompingMike1985]

@mlc34932 organisation is what keeps humanity in check not leaders. anarchism is the idea of a societal organisation without government, this can can be done through various methods such as a council of delegates, consensus decision making, and trade unionism....seems far fetched i know but it's not as childish as people assume it is.

[Bloomazz]

what if all the farmers decided because they are free, they wanted to keep the food to themself? and then you demand they give you food.. apparently that makes you an authoritarian Never seen any people so deludedly idealistic as anarchists, worse then communists by far -_-

[coconutlulz]

If farmers want to keep the food for themselves, that is their right to do so. The solution: grow your own food to end your reliance on them. Nobody is going to demand to be nannied like the current fatocracy does.

[Bloomazz]

your comment really is disgustingly ignorant mate, you think people starve in africa because they just cant be bothered to grow their own food? they NEED to buy it off farmers but not even they can make enough thus starvation

[Dudtz]

☭★☭★☭★☭★☭★☭★☭★☭★☭★☭★☭★☭★☭★

[morningstomper123]

power is TAKEN, not given. If you were to abolish hierachy, what would stop me exacting a small amount of control over the people in my life? Nothing couls stop me, and i would take the world.

[5ag5]

NOOOOO you are wrong my friend, there is a thing called REVOLUTION and on this ALL Anarchist agree, Revolution is necesary to balance society. Is like when you have a virus you body reacts to return to its healthy state, in this case with Anarchysm Revolution will eliminate any form of hierchy and return to its normal state. Its true that there are natural leaders in society no arguing about that, BUT the decisions don't go around him, he doesn't make a final decision, his vote is exactly equal

[5ag5]

.....as anyones. And there is groups that exist like that in todays lives, the leaders just are the mediators in the group however the final decision is made by everyone not by himself. Sounds like a Democracy right? But who decides all the laws to be establish, who decides to go to war, who decides the economi policies? I for one has never taken a decision on any of those things, that is why voting doesn't make any diference aven if you do it or not.

[Phlynx251]

Not until people who are completely free, riot against you and destroy your hopes and dreams of ruling the world

[watermel0n5]

does a "janitor", or cleaner in England, have to go to school, university etc. etc. whereas the "CEO" did and had to get promoted to that job, because they worked hard. being a cleaner is easy, but is being a "CEO" easy? no...

[5ag5]

the people that worked hard will get rewarded, Anarchists are not hippies or hobo, Its just that the CEO's "power" or decisions are not any different from that of a janitor at the time of making decisions. To put it this way the CEO proposes the ideas and everyone votes equally on the decisions on where to take the company per se, and everyone will debate whether this is good or bad, kind of like collective bargain but taken it a step much further, because hierarchy disappears.

[watermel0n5]

the ones at the bottom have the potential to get power

who would run companies?

if youre in a job situation and you are being exploited then leave...

if everyone was free noone would work

if none works no advances are made

the country is left behind

it can then be "exploited" by other countries

however, i like the way you set out the vid :)

[samrock92]

Learn more about Anarchism before commenting on it fascist.

[destructicon500]

You "leave" the job you're being exploited in, only to be exploited by another employer! If not an employer, then the government itself.

Of course people would work! If they didn't nothing would get done, and people know that. Anarchists aren't stupid.

But because people are free, we can focus labour on what is necessary - for example, if roads need repairing, it will become apparent and a union of workers who know how to do that will do it

[watermel0n5]

people wouldnt work as often as possible would they?

why do you always say that people are exploited?? its such an over the top word. people arent whipped or anything....

people with less ability do the work which this ability is relevant to.

people with more ability do the work which this ability is relevant tto, which is rewarded more because its harder

they have more ability because theyve worked harder, at school for instance.

whats wrong with that?

[destructicon500]

I don't understand your English too well, but I'll try my best as responding.

"people wouldnt work as often as possible would they?" --- If you mean to work for a wage, then no, they wouldn't work as often as possible. Work would be done in order to fulfill societal needs.

[destructicon500]

"people with more ability do the work which this ability is relevant tto, which is rewarded more because its harder

they have more ability because theyve worked harder, at school for instance. "

Janitors get paid shit compared to CEOs and board members of corporations and businesses, but they do much harder work. The women and children working in sweatshops may work 70+ hour weeks for pennies, and you think that it's because they "don't work hard?"

[destructicon500]

While it's true that not ANYONE can do ANY job, it's erroneous to claim that the people who get paid more work harder or are more skilled.

Anarchism seeks to abolish the wage system anyway, so this talk of wages is useless.

[MrMaxBoivin]

@destructicon500 People that are paid more are usually more in demand (except in the case of union and public job). Anarchism DOES NOT seeks to abolish the wage system. MARXISM does. Anarchism want freedom for everyone, not everybody to be force to the same salary. I'm free to negotiate my salary and to accept to work for someone or not. The employer and the employee agreeing on a fair price for the work to be done, that's freedom.

[destructicon500]

@MrMaxBoivin Considering that I'm not really into "radical" politics anymore, I'm not going to try and defend anarchism or anything, but my understanding is that anarchism as presented in this video series is anarchist-communism/anarcho-sy­ndicalism. What you are talking about sounds more like agorism or "right-wing anarchism" or whatever kids call it these days.

[destructicon500]

@MrMaxBoivin And also, given your example of what "freedom" is, pretty much everyone in an industrialized country is "free." Which is sort of erroneous.

[MrMaxBoivin]

@destructicon500 Everybody would be free if there was no state (and no border) to f**k the whole thing up. Now, an important part of everyone's wage is stolen by government. Government will also arbitrarily decide how much money they take from every individual and enterprise. If you're friend with the power, will have taxes brake, if you're not, it will be really hard to compete against those who are. And I,m not even talking about all the permit and license you'll need.

[dirtnap1965]

Few observations:

1. The existence of individuals implies a mutual limitation of freedom. For example, the more people there are, the less resources each individual has access to without limiting the availability of resources to another. Acess to resources is an important component, perhaps the essential component of freedom.

[prjctcivilian]

how about authority in the work place

[madlookalike]

I love ll your videos. You have helped me sharpen my arguments for Anarchy. I find that I often agree with what you have to say.

I'm curious how you feel about hierarchy in a family setting. Is it necessary? Can it be avoided? Is it needed to raise critical thinking children.

Thanks for all the good you do.

[PerianArdocyl]

I only find one problem with this... you can't really get rid of hierarchy. You can make it so there is no OFFICIAL hierarchy, as in, getting rid of ranking systems and titles, but people always find a way to organize themselves into some sort of social hierarchy. =P

Although I'm sure that's probaly not what you guys meant.

[trucksnpucks]

ANarchy is not necisarily a good or bad thing.

if we had there ideas in place then we would have a dictator at one point. i believe in the fact that every one hould have the eentials but we need a goverment of the people where everyone has power

[KenCat1337]

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[krissy4nik]

I had an anarchist language arts teacher in the 7th grade and at the time all I knew of anarchism was what my parents taught me and she cleared up the idea for me. She asked me why I felt anarchy was bad thing and I said because if there were no leaders there would be chaos. She used the analogo of study groups we all worked together and each person used their tallents to get the project done. Some people drew some wrote but no one dictated to us what to do. A is a collective effort to create.

[katards]

Or a house or land deed?

[katards]

Ask the Iraqi people how civilized we are.

[fenhrir]

Basically people at the bottom have power, because the ellect the people at the top. Not all but the governement.

[evilmick66]

I believe in the elimination of power but I don't think it is possible to eliminate the kind of power defined as "punching someone in the face." Nor do I think ye should even define such a thing as "power" or "coercing someone's freedom." I believe that if someone punches me in the face I should have the natural, human right to beat the crap out of him.

[themonkeywrench]

I agree, that's the difference between initiatory force and defensive force. The person initiating force has something or other to gain by attacking you. You have nothing to gain by using defensive force, but you have a hell of a lot to lose, so you are justified in protecting your freedom.

I'm not sure what type of anarchism is against this, but I disagree with anyone who thinks that defending oneself is wrong.

[JanxMan]

It would be great if people could live so peacefully in a power vacuum. It would be great if people could fly too. Wishing for something to be the case offers no key to actualization.

"The gap between how people actually behave and how they ought to behave is so great that anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an ideal will soon discover he has been taught how to destroy himself, not how to preserve himself." - Niccolo Machiavelli

[katards]

Machiavelli was forever trying to garner the approval of the elite and wrote what he knew their itching ears wanted to hear. Why should we allow someone who died in poverty as Machiavelli did to guide us as to self preservation?

[JanxMan]

This is an ad hominem, perhaps ad hominem circumstantial, and a genetic fallacy.

Truth be told, if you had taken the time to read the Machiavelli quote, you'd see that it is nothing more than a manifestation of the scientific principle applied to political science; id est, study they way things are, not they way they ought to be.

And what is the substance of your objection anyway? Is the truth of the statement at all affected by your personal feelings about Machiavelli? No? Alright then.

[katards]

gobbledegook.

[katards]

The way things are: Machiavelli dying impoverished.

The way things ought to be if Machiavelli's writings were to have manifested in his own life by virtue of their relevance to the way things are: Machiavelli being a world leader, or at least having a mini-fiefdom.

You should take your own advice and study the way things are.

[katards]

Also, my argument is not ad hominem circunstanciae because that would mean that the philosophic quotation by Machiavelli is a fact, which, in fact, it is not.

[JanxMan]

The incidentals of Machiavelli's life are inconsequential to the validity of his statement.

While I respect your ferocious attitude in researching the particular details of Niccolo Machiavelli and his personal position of power (despite the fact that he claimed to capture the exercise of power accurately because of his distance from it), I cannot be clear enough in expressing the complete irrelevance of citing here.

[JanxMan]

As for whether Machiavelli's statement is a fact, I am proposing that it is. You are trying to refute its validity with a fallacy of relevance; that is, an ad hominem. By citing that Machiavelli's personal writings did not garner him power is a sort of "Tu Quoque" which is still irrelevant to the substance of his argument.

[katards]

Machiavelli is irrelevant to the substance of this video.

[JanxMan]

Exactly.

The study of human behavior in a social setting is, on the other hand, quite apropos.

The quotation which ruffled your feathers was nothing more than an ancillary corollary to a larger point about the necessity of an incentive based system for human action, facilitated by the personal investment generated with the use of private property.

Suggesting that people will flourish in a state which denies the profit motive is "ignoring everyday reality in order to live up to an ideal"

[katards]

The study of human behavior is more affected by the observer than you realize.

[katards]

Also, we have been conditioned by the constructs of our society to be extrinsically motivated, Which makes us rely on a hierarchy and takes away personal sovereignty. This is an artificial imposition on our true nature which is intrinsically motivated and creative. So actually, the current state of affairs is that we are living everyday ignoring the reality of our true nature to live up to (or down to) the ideals of the few at the top of this monstrous pyramid scheme we call civilization.

[katards]

And in case you haven't been paying attention, private property is quickly becoming a thing of the past for the majority of people. Btw, have you read a mortgage contract lately?

[IncoherentGodDotCom]

I always thought that the idea that anti-capitalism and anarchists and other libertarian socialists, etc. want to remove the profit motive is a fanciful misinterpretation. Rather, we would want to reshape the structure of social interactions so that the "profit" motive(or more accurately, the drive to self-interest) coincides with the interests of the rest of society. Maybe you should actually read some socialist literature.

[JanxMan]

I never meant to say that they want to remove the profit motive. I said, in effect, that they fail to take it into account. To "reshape" the structure of social interactions so that the profit motive coincides with social interests, one must

"shape" the structure through the coercive means of a government. The profit motive works to the interest of the self (not necessarily at the expense of society, but not for its sake either).

Directing the profit motive is only done through the state.

[opinionhead444]

Nice video, DannyOKC.

I find it ironic that you are an anarchist AND a teacher. I believe that educators are the true light of the world that will rid the world of the ignorant darkness, but I also know that an educator is in a position of authority. I am an educator myself and I conform to the whims of my masters, but how do you do it? How do maintain an unpopular political position within a place where being authoritarian is commanded on a daily basis?

[extinctionspasm]

Not all anarchists are so fundamental to the removal of hierarchy as the idea carried to its extreme conclusion implies. What many believe is that hierarchies are not self justifying, and that in turn any hierarchy must be justified by those who impose it. The example Chomsky gives is if I am walking down the street with my two year old, and as she attempts to run out into traffic I grab her by the arm and hold her back. Now that is an act of domination, but one that most say is justified.

[jdj106]

hey you watched that video too?

[MrMincer]

I have a question for all anarchists reading this... When the principle of true equality stands, and implies that there is no government, no exploitation and no rules... Then how the fuck are you going to prevent people from criminal behaviour and committing crimes?!?

[karbrino]

First at all, nice to meet you. Criminals usually rob or murder for something because they do not have thing they need or wanted. Every people in anarchism society will allow to carry gun for self-defense or to quickly dispose anything that against anarchism. What is the point to rob or murder if you can work simple for it.

[MrMincer]

Yes, I'm sure the number of ways to commit crime wil increase when you get rid of property, but I doubt if the actual crimerate will increase beacuse of that. There will allways be people who simply want more, selfish greedy people, you know what I mean.

[LedahX]

In an anarchist society, people would be expected to be able to protect themselves from the few criminals there are. In a world where everyone is armed, and there is no bureaurocracy

to slow down punishments to criminals, it would heavily deter people from causing trouble for others.

[MrMincer]

I thought anarchism was pacifistic.

[YouAreABamma]

Incorrect. Anarchism does not mean, nor does it imply pacifism; however, that's not to say you can't be a pacifist AND an anarchist. Anarchism does not claim to "fix" people. America has an intensely large police force and look at the amount of crimes committed on a daily basis. Some people will be stupid no matter in what society they live. Anarchy just tries to make it fair for those that aren't. Too many people jump to conclusions about anarchy without asking questions, so please ask more. :)

[MrMincer]

I understand now, and I have another question! :D If there is no employment, then how will you deal with people who simple suck at doing their 'jobs' properly? I mean, you can't fire them right?

[YouAreABamma]

Hmm, well, I'm not sure I agree with the idea of no employment. To be quite honest, these videos are the first I've heard of having a system in which absolutely nobody has more power than anyone else under any circumstance. My views hold that it's OK for one to have more power than another, if it's voluntary. This allows, for example, hired bodyguards for those that don't wish to defend themselves. If anyone else is reading this and has some insight, I, and I'm sure Mincer, would appreciate some

[fivetoedpenguin]

So what is the answer to the question at the end?

What would you do with those people?

being anarchists it gives others the right to enslave them, or kill them "eye for an eye"

But is that justifiable, anarchism is based on morality is it not?

[anarchyforus]

enslaving wouldn't be an option because its a form of hierarchy. killing someone also is a form of control so that isn't an option either. I think it would be best to just keep a close eye on them and make sure they don't make the same mistake twice. if someone does that in such a utopic society they just need some sort of mental help. or in the extreme case: ban him from the world that was to good for him to live in and let him roam somewhere else.

[joe1234511111]

Nice videos, thank you for posting these

[iamtheender]

once again, another great vid. i tend to be friendly with anarchists because i myself am a communist, very closely related are the two.

[GuerrilleroIdealista]

Actually, no they are not related..in the socialist point of view yes put not that much

[DownToTheUnderground]

Thank you very much for this Video!!!

[lladmirall]

Is there any meaningful difference between anarchism (as you describe it) and social democracy? Can the necessary conditions for life (food, shelter, meaningful work, access to culture, etc.) be supplied without forms of social cooperation (i.e. democratic institutions) that involve at least a minimum amount of coercion viz. law, custom, ethics, and so forth?

[MatthewLeee]

What about economic heirarchies that come naturally from trade? I doubt that any REAL anarchist would abandon trade.

[godfather755]

How many people do not want government?? Only the anarchists. How many are the anarchists in the world? I dont think that they are more than those that vote a government coz if they were a government would have not been elected.

Hierarchy??? Everywhere there is hierarchy even in jungle. "The big fish eats the smaller one" (As we say in Greek)

[dess272]

Only about 1/3 of America votes, approx. If we count non-votes as votes for anarchy, there would be no government.

As for trade, there are different schools of thought on that.

As for jungle hierarchy, are you as dumb as a big fish, or a little fish?

Humans have minds to think for a reason. With the idea of Anarchy, we've evolved past the flawed world of government.

[raschoel]

Great vids.

[OttOmOlOtOv]

Great Stuff! I hope the coming Summer break will give you some time to continue these invaluable lessons.

[blaziermissy]

wonderful! I'm getting psyched with hope!

[puturos]

More lessons!Please!

[ByPolarBear666]

Love the vids. Subscribed, and anxious for more!

[mimikachu]

More lessons! More lessons!

[zmichalka]

great job! it's a bit simplistic, but it is anarchism 101 and not anarchism 401 :) we'll get there, i'm sure.

[madhatterz]

sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet im gonna spread it around

[agenttachyon]

Whooo YouTube Anarchists unite (but equally of course)! I'm psyched as fuck to hear your take on crime, keep it up.

[notque]

Please make more. These are valuable.

[funkmasterswede]

Great video. I am somewhat of anarchosyndicalist myself.