Emma Goldman was born in Lithuania, within the Russian Empire, but she was both ethnically and culturally Lithuanian not Russia as mentioned in this video.
Maybe Anarchism could be achieved by a growing number simply ignoring the state and the law. I think that it's called agorism. So people won't give anymore power to the state and the power of the state over us would vanish through an evolutionary process. I welcome responses, I'm trying to understand anarchy and ways to achive it.
If anarchy is the absence of government and authority, how does an anarchist movement get started? With a leader, and people to follow that leader. And voila, you have a basic form of government.
I would like to know why you anarchists believe what you do. Have you seen evidence in history that anarchy has made life better for people? Do you see this in Somalia? Cambodia? No, you do not.
Anarchy will never survive on its own, it can only fight an established government.
There is no set leader. How does a grassroot movement usually start? with an idea, inspiration from an individual, they usually arnt the leader but we find inspiration from the actions taken from a person who we admire.
haha I think that just because this person posts this on here (I'm using this to study for a test in Political Theory) doesn't mean that he or she is an anarchist. Stop arguing over whether anarchism is right or wrong. If it was the way forward, it would have succeeded already or at least gotten very close. However, that's not the case. So, obviously it's just a niche philosophy that doesn't really have enough merit to ever consider putting into practice.
@MrDrewboggess History doesn't just naturally fall at the right conclusion and neither do people.
Were the playing field made level, merit would indeed come into play however the state and co have: Armys, the media, control over jobs and resource distribution, religion, intelligence services, assassins, pigs, indoctrinated citizens, cowards, the apathetic and ignorant, all in its favour.
With the advance of technology we are starting see some of the tenants of the anarchists bare fruit.
@MrDrewboggess yes well the two ideas don't necessarily counterpose. in fact anarchism did succeed. the spanish civil war is a great example. i would argue that existentialism is a pillar in capitalist ideology as it embraces the 'individual' which is not what anarchism is all about, especially anarcho-syndicalism. so its not a Nietzschen philosophy as you have termed it, and im not sure what you meant by it not having enough merit?
@carovski the basic principles of anarchism are present in a lot more political thought other than Nietzschen, and is practiced by many different societies who run successfully, take a look at the zapatistas for example. :)
We should do away with communist guerrillas in Latin America. And replace them with anarchist communist guerrillas who would fight for real liberty, democracy, and equality. There was an anarchist movement in Cuba after Castro took power. I wish they won, but many of those countries would be easy targets to American business imperialists.
@4500jas How does an anarchist fight for democracy?!? That is completely against their values. If they are fighting for democracy, they are revolutionaries, not anarchists.
Free energy has been here all along ,But the Oil coporations life depends on covering this up,Find the real deal, a free energy device at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the energy revolution!
Thanks a lot for this documentary about a great woman and feminist pioneer.
"No one has yet realized the wealth of sympathy, the kindness and generosity hidden in the soul of a child. The effort of every true education should be to unlock that treasure."
@reuabmik I believe she was sympathetic to their aims. For more on this read "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn (may he rest in peace).
It should come as no surprise that modern day feminist scholars make very little or no mention of Emma Goldman. They see the solution to women's liberation through government action only. In other words they still see women as weak helpless damsels in need of rescuing only they want Big Brother to be their knight and shining armor instead.
@velenofiore It is true that she is sometimes mentioned and celebrated for many reasons, chief among them being that she was a strong advocate for birth control. Overall, however, you don't hear that much mention of her compared to someone like Susan B. Anthony. If you read up on what modern day feminists have to say, the vast majority of them are in favor of rigid state control in the name of keeping women "safe" and have no interest in women being "liberated".
@RunLiberty Emma's family was Orthodox Jewish but she herself was an atheist.
The reason they vote for these statists is the reason everyone does. The state provides them with the same sort of false sense of security that all governments have given their sheep. As such, some people are so hopelessly dependant upon the system that they will fight and die to protect it. If you are an anarchist, you must learn to understand these people for they will be your biggest obstacle.
i like taoism too. people are best left alone from state interference I think, any state or organisation. Good stuff. People are self serving and frightened now.
Anarchy is the table top which allows for a wide range of beliefs(even non anarchy) and practices. Socialism is the legs of the table which makes sure that it stays this way with a non heirachal government. I'm a Socialist but Syndacalism Anarchy catches my fancy but I see Anarchy as more of a bridge to a better tomorrow instead of a permenant system. Emma Goldman was ahead of her time for sure.
'Anarchy',just like 'dictatorship',is simply a generic term that bcan find practical application in any process of social organization,from capitalism to communism,& from family life to voluntary associations.
Orthodox Communism & Socialism,both,are fundamentally anarchist theories in that they're consumated in non-coercive,popular civil societies.
I'm not christian. I just belive that there is a god. that doesn't make me worthless. with no god, what worth do you have? In that sence all you do is eat and sleep and then you die in the blink of an eye, and you rot in the ground. thats the end. Besides, scientificaly speaking, God, is true, as there is more evidence for him than against him. Para-Psychology is now an accepted form of science. But my whole point is, how is it Anarchy when, in her eyes, no one is alowed to worship God?
@FuCuMao She's not saying that no one is allowed to worship God. She just believed that God should not be used, like many churches do, to strongarm people into doing what the church wants you to do because it's "right" or "it's God's will". You can still worship God. Just don't be a douche about it. ;)
Anarchy is the way, the only freedom man kind will ever have. GOverment does nothing but suppress you and restrict you. I believe Anarchy will one day rule, and Goverment will collapse
Yeah. It's an authentic George Washington quote. He also admitted that the Illuminati had begun to infiltrate America. People call that a crazy conspiracy theory, but scans of the original letter are available for download at the Library of Congress Web site. @clayrains
"Forcing or preventing people from form such collectives on the basis that they are not practicing true anarchy is a statist mentality in and of itself."
They are not practicing anarchism... Ask Emma, ask Malatesta, Revachol...
Let me put at this way: Some economists use the word anarchy just as a "against the state" word... That statement don't mean anything!
Please dudes, don't make those sad affirmatives... Anarchism was born in the mind of the working class!
Anarchism is without adjectives. We anarchists should reject formal society, and form collectives on the basis of what works best for the people participating. I'm not trying to detract the socialism at all, in fact I think much of the ideas can be blended with other schools of thought.
And stop worshipping past anarchist thinkers. Society should formed on what is best for it's participants, not because of how great a thinker Goldman was. We simply take their ideas, not mythologize them.
I do not worship anyone. Those thinkers represent Anarchism(at least in the place where I live)... We do not use their image in banners or anything like that, we are not Stalinists.
Let me put in this way:
What is anarcho-nacionalism ? (yes, that is ridiculous, I know, but exist)
What is anarcho-primitivism ? ( wtf )
So how long can you affirm that nationalism and primitivism can blend with anarchism ? That is the point... The same with capitalism.
bakunin and proudhon were also horrifying antisemitic.
it's really sad that anarchists weren't making much of a progress when it came to equal rights for jewish people. you should read proudhons writings about jews - that shit is repulsive
And sorry for my sarcasm comrade. It's a habit lol. I'm not accusing you of creating a cult of personality, I'm just saying that many of those thinkers were just...well thinkers. They have good ideas, but they have no authority on what is "true anarchism," and it is up to us individuals to decide how to run our lives free from rulers.
And let me put at this way... If you ask to worker from Spain/Brazil/Ukraine/Argentina... (all places where anarchism worked not just as an idea) what is anarchism is about... they will say: Libertarian Communism...
Do not try to get socialism from the history of anarchism, this is RIDICULOUS ... this sound as a "you tube" talk...
Search information about the Anarchist communes in Catalonia... That was an anarchist society, no PROPERTY, no STATE, no GOD... who destroyed that ? Stalin... :)
Anyone who kills Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an international hero. Anarchists of the world unite! We must support those in Iran who desire to be liberated from this tyrant. Apply pressure(by all means necessary) to any governments or corporations that support him or his regime. To those in the Iranian government: distance yourself from Ahmadinejad or you will be destroyed with him. Death to the dictator! To those in the Green movement continue to fight. Nothing great comes without great sacrifice
As an anarchist, I can't stand it when my fellow anarchists fight. It's pretty counter-productive. The fact is that all forms of anarchy are voluntary. Since individualist anarchy is the rawest form of anarchy, in a truely free-market individuals are free to form societies under the principle that no one has the right to rule.
Forcing or preventing people from form such collectives on the basis that they are not practicing true anarchy is a statist mentality in and of itself.
That's quite a interesting point. But Anarchism is not just "against the state"... anarchism is against hierarchy.
"Anarchism seeks to arouse the consciousness of oppression, the desire for a better society, and a sense of the necessity for unceasing warfare against capitalism and the State." - Emma Goldman
Maybe there is a way to factorize anarchism... but is impossible to not see socialism as a common factor in an anarchist mind.
And yes, Emma was not a statist... she was collectivist.
Don't you think life is a combination of collectivism and individualism? In my view true freedom would have to be a combination of both. Collective freedom not invading individual freedom and vice versa. I think it's possible. At least people could employ the largest amount of freedom in their lives by applying that principle.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You people are so confused. This video isn't about anarchy. This is Communism.
Anarchy means no order, no government, no expectations. Anarchy has no means of production or distribution.
Anarchy means anything requiring the use of authoritative power is farce. Therefore ideas such as equality, justice, freedom and fairness simply do not have any meaning because there is nobody to protect them. Especially if they are too weak to defend their own liberties.
Perhaps, you are too stupid to realize how the communist have infiltrated the Anarchist. The history of Anarchism is messed up because the communist have infected it.
True Anarchy is oppsed to any and all social norms, collectivism, and/or expectations. True anarchy is purely individualistic.
Obviously this supposed "history of anarchy" that you speak of does not exist. All I ever see is communist disguising themselves as anarchists.
Ughh you really are a moron, aren't you? How about you actually look up the history of anarchism instead of pulling shit out your ass? Do you know who Mikhail Bakunin is? Peter Kropotkin? Proudhon? Karl Marx had his beefs with both Bakunin and Proudhon so this "communist infiltration" you speak of is just plain nonsense.
The only anarchist who would come close to your definition of "True Anarchy" is Max Stirner. And he is an exception within the history of anarchism. Please do some research.
You are the moron, the people you have just mentioned are a bunch of socialists, in my veiw.
Let me give you an example:
Mikhail Bakunin believed in Collectivist Anarchism. Which calls for revolution and redistribution. This is an inheriently Statist tactic.
The only true anarchists are Individualistic Anarchist like Max Stirner. Who are against ALL FORMS OF STATISM AND/OR COLLECTIVISM. Including, but not limited to: social norms, organization, and redistribution.
please refrain from the ad hominem attacks, even when you feel justified by speaking to a brick wall of an unthinking person. calling them a moron won't help anything.
and when it comes to discussing various anarchist schools of thought, the little ditty 'karl marx's whiskers were 12 inches long' pops into my head and i realize it's all just squabbling. the things that are universal are most important.
it means that authoritative power must be proven legitimate. like when a child runs into a road, you stop them. that is legitimate use of authority over someone.
with power distributed equally, as opposed to centralized power, liberties are very hard to remove from a person or group of persons.
Anarchy based on one simple premise: only you know what's best for you. When you accept or recognize someone else as a figure of authority you are pretty much saying that this person know's whats best for you.
and only the people know whats best for the people. No one being can ever know what is best for a large group of people; thats what the people should decide.
Thank you all very much for the explanation. I guess a belief in anarchism then relies on the belief humanity is good & morally concious? I like the idea it represents, but I don't believe in that. Judging by the fact people in countries without organised healthcare are dying at this very moment and most people are content driving a big car/shopping instead of helping them out. Not to mention I think morals are something changeable, something dependable on culture. Guess it's not for me, then.
we can do it. slowly but surley. dont give up so qick. it starts with your attitude and the way you treat others. governments do not work. look around you. read about empires and government. humans are the only thing that can make this world run properly.
Our current system upholds value systems that refine our worst traits,and a tremendous amount of money and intervention is required to do it,(see "the century of self",read "Dumbing us down",and consider the social atmosphere created by wage slavery and constant war,people are put in situations where they must beg and compete for crumbs,kill in wars ect. remove the systemic causes of the problems and then we can work on solutions.
and removing the systemic causes of these problems requires very few things to start. workers must collectively place their hands firmly in their pockets. stop the machine entirely. then, again collectively, make the most simple demands known and met. in my eyes the most important one is to admit to our crimes and immediately stop committing them. punish those who enacted them, and move on from there in an open fashion. that seems to me to be a logical 'first' step in the large-scale department.
You only have to believe that people are generally capable of doing good. Then you try to set up a society that promotes that innate quality (an anarchist one) instead one that exploits selfishness and the like. Your half way there!
Actually anarchism is not based on the belief that humanity is good, it recognizes that it isnt and that if you give people power or control of other people they will abuse it,this is also why it is not capitalist,people use wealth and control of resources etc. to exploit and control people.We recognize both sides of human nature and the need to develop our better qualities and that only through freedom and the responsability it comes with will we reach our potential..
I'm going to ask a probably very stupid question, but I'd appreciate a non-stupid answer. =) I like the little I know of anarchism, especially Emma Goldman's ideas. I don't think governement needs to be involved the way it is now, etc etc. There's one thing that bothers me though; what exactly would happen to the losers, chronically ill people etc, in an anachistic society? Given that there is no governement to give them free care anymore, how would they survive? Charity is hardly enough.
The government don't supply the health-care, the people the government control do. Do you think these people would allow others to die, whether forced or not? I don't. It's not about charity, it never is. It's about what one man is willing to do for another, because they like doing it, and people will ALWAYS like healing others, and people will always like supporting that.
Joneselius comment is exactly right, we wouldn't sit by idly while people suffered from illness we would take care of them because that's what's needed to advance in society. They wouldn't be doing it for money or notoriety or power.
The government doesn't give people free care, another aspect of Anarchy is that everyone would work to benefit humanity. So we would take care of the ill.
Watching this is another painful reminder of how I was brought up to percieve something a different way than what it is...
I always thought/was told that anarchy was the essence of all evil; that it meant chaos and violence, and 'every man for himself'... quite the opposite it would seem; and it would also seem that anarchy might best represent many of my ideals... life never ceases to amaze me...
Anarchism is the only way of life where love and peace are it's both method and goal. It's not a dream, some wishfull thinking, it is a nessesity. Everyone is different, no one is equal, and therefore everyone should be respected! Peace, love and power to us people!
Ah, Emma Goldman. Brilliant, courageous, uncompromising. Some hold up Lenin as the perfect Revolutionary- but he betrayed his own ideas and morals, in the end. Goldman was the pefect Revolutionary- she would not betray her ideals for anything, even for the "condemnation of [her] own closest Comrades".
He tried to get the point across that people should not politicise anarchism as then you get an inevitible control structure. He was also kicked out of the Marxist ideology. Great man actually, similar to Emma.
Emma has some fine works, I like her pieces on God as the ultimate nothing. And her essays on the education system of bred conformity.
Well, yes, and he seemed to have the same sort of Nietzschean twist to his philosophy as Goldman did (though, obviously, his was placed in before Nietzsche wrote what he wrote, where Goldman used his ideas well after he had set them out, and she's used them more extensively).
Each to their own I suppose. I just like reading her stuff, it's easy to read and not overly cluttered like Bacunins can sometimes be; with political overtones.
I don't think looking round these days - with how easily people are duped with both propaganda and media lies - that we're going to approach anything near to anarchy, not before there's a completely totalitarian government first. History is about to hit refresh in my opinion.
I am the only person who can own my life and nobody no matter how elected or how powerful has the moral or legal authority to tell me, "I have a higher claim on your life than you do and I demand your money for society otherwise I will imprison you and brand you as unpatriotic."
^That's all anarchy is people. You have the right to govern yourself and nobody else has the right to tell you how to live your life.
Anarchy is not the absence of order. It is not the absence of hierarchy. It is the recognition that a suit of hat, no matter how fine, or no matter how 'official' cannot give you moral superiority over someone, on the basis of some 'system' of people. 'Government cannot exist without the consent of the governed.' Actually, when there is the consent of the individual, it's not really 'government', at least not in anarchist philosophy. Then it is just a voluntarist social structure.
Anarchy cant work. The masses are stupid, selfish and lazy. If there is no order there is nothing. I know this will get negative comments but is it not true?
You think it won't work, but we have never truly had a free society. We are born and constantly told to give away our power to authority. When people feel powerless they also feel helpless. It is because we are constantly trying to meet our basic needs just to survive, that it leaves little time for education, time to think, so it may appear as though most are stupid, selfish and lazy. It is not true, most are just forced to live in survival mode at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
So we need the idiots in the government to help them? The point of anarchy is the idea that you can just say "FUCK THAT SHIT" when ever they say something stupid.
We should all be fighting in the streets for democracy, against illegitimate authority rooted in domination and greed. Abolish pyramids, the ruling class, the system of top down control which restricts opportunities to fully develop as a human beings, which denies self-determination, which imposes false choices, mandates conformity, muzzles dissent, creates false enemies, rewards destruction, propagates ignorance and shackles truth.
I agree with you. We have the capability to provide every person on the planet with CO2 emission free energy, shelter, food, education, and health care and also have more free time if we limit the work week to 20 hrs. We need to stop placing value on things and money and value the well being of the people and the planet we share. You can't eat gold, diamonds, or computer chips. No one has the right to deny anyone the use of the land to live, grow and harvest food from. We need to share freely.
the Austrian school (Ron Paul's guideline) is Anarcho-Capitalist. This is the only way anarchy would work, unless there was an organization that took down business which prospered for profit (falling short of the definition of anarchy).
Ron Paul's guideline may be an anarchist one, but he himself is an obvious statist- he tried to become the president, not abolish the president. As for Anarcho-Capitalism: my objections to certain facets are too numerous and complex to elaborate here, but in short- I believe mutualism is best.
I think Ron Paul's intentions were clear. Once he took office he was going to take a pay cut, get rid of the fed, the IRS and the department of education, and bring from our troops from every foreign soil. I got the impression he was trying to reduce the state from the top down...
Well, I would say the way to eliminate government is through market means (Agorism), rather than through the govt. its self. That would just be prolonging the problem, when the are faster, less risky, and more ethical ways to do so.
Well, a market is simply a supply and demand, an exchange of goods and services, correct? Well, I identify capitalism with the systematic excesses in free marketism. In capitalism- anything goes. I do not believe that a person should, for instace, be able to "own" land that he does not occupy, or own the means of production of another. That is why I am not a capitalist- because in capitalism anything can be owned. I don't believe anything can or should be legitematly owned.
Well, you wouldn't be able too. It wouldn't be something bought or sold- the only way you could own it is by occupancy, use, etc. It would seem that the only thing that keeps unused land and the means of other people's labor in the hands of those who control them is authority, in the form of the government, supposedly protecting property rights.
Well, I would be opposed to any means of exchange having a monopoly in use or a total control of the ability to meet the demand for currency. But, as I said, this would not apply to things like land; so land would be considered owned by the person occupying or using it. If you farm the land or build a house on it, then its yours for the time; you just can't claim to own massive tracts of idle, unused land, especially when it could provide for people who need it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is a bull-shit Liberal Capitalist Propaganda Video! It's "selective intent" stinks to high heaven!
Take this: " From each according to their ability, from each according to their needs". Isn't this JUST THE WAY the vast majority of humanity have ALWAYS LIVED? -Yet here it is branded "hopeless Idealism"! Our economy is in vast trouble NOW - because worthless, brainless, idle idiots have been garnering vast wealth & influence! THAT WILL CHANGE!
You anarchists who post anarchistic messages on a million dollar capitalistic channel (Youtube) are bloody hypocrites. Haha. But I liked the video though. Very educational.
hmm? Taking advantage of the resources available is hardy hypocritical. No one is saying sites like Youtube are inherently evil. We're against capitalism itself, not against any particular products developed under it.
You said that you're against Capitalism itself but not the products of Capitalism? You're contradicting yourself. The products of capitalism is Capitalism. It's just like buying a can of Pepsi which IS supporting the corporate suits to profit. How could you be against capitalism when you're utilizing it's products which would benefit the rich. In the case of Youtube, being a youtuber supports the Youtube corp in some way just like buying a can of Pepsi supports Pepsi.
Marxists believe that Capitalism will create wealth, but then collapse under its own immorality. It transcends to Socialism & then Communism.
Unfortunately, Marx never detailed how all this would actually occur, nor how a functional Communist system would work. His ideas are about as functional as the Qur'an in the modern world.
Pepsi is just sugary syrup and carbonated water. Youtube is just a website that hosts videos. They are not capitalism. Capitalism is the ownership of the means of production by an arbitrary person for the purposes of profit rather than by the workers or for the needs of the community. It also is about the class differences that inevitably rise from a competitive market.
Boycotting is not an effective means to fight capitalism. I might as well kill myself and do as much good. There are still millions of people willing to give their money for these products. Anyways, even if the market for superfluous products ceases to exist, our needs for food, water, and housing are still controlled through private means. Not much we can do about that through boycotting. It isn't about who has the money at the moment, it's about the system overall that is enforced by police.
A revolution is what anarchism needs. Not some pussy ass boycott. Throw a bomb! Assasinate! You can't fight bullets with flowers. These are what anarchists should do to live up to what they stand for whitout contradicting themselves. Fight the police for you rights to defend your liberty. I mean 'they' because I'm not an anarchist but I do love history.
I actually agree with you here. I definitely believe we should try kicking things up a notch and help give people a foot to stand on.
Unfortunately many radical groups tend to be watered down with liberal actions. We need to move away from things like protests and symbolic actions and actually do more useful things. Steal money and food and give it away to the poor. Break into an unused house or building and help a family squat there. Sabotage police stations.
The one with the bigger fist always wins in a war of might. In a battle of ideas one can simply make logical arguments to convince people. I dont need to kill a police officer if I can convince an officer. If anarchism came to be through a system of violence it can easily be destroyed through a sytem of violence.
Like what Emma Goldman said; Steal bread if you're hungry. Or something like that. Food, water, and housing can be controlled through collective means. Look at Jewish kibbutz. I believe that anarchism can work.
At first I thought I was going to like this video. The first paragraph of the description was dead on, but once I got past that, I was greatly disappointed. To me, this is not anarchy at all, this is simply amoral atheism in the guise of something that also happens to be against the establishment of A government. Admittedly, I only watched the first two minutes of the video. At that point, I had heard and read enough to know that this is not truly anarchy, not the sense I use the word, at least.
In america violent anarchy is a reactive mind, non-solution
peacefully protesting and informing the people is the only way to win. A confrontation of an informed public is the only way. Violence soon will only bring a police state quicker. Stop violence during protests and amass every body with a working brain. join the infowar. and buy ammunition/food/metals.
...Understand folks resistance to corrupt religion, but blanket rejection creates an unnessary obstacle to understanding and leads you into morbid preoccupation with materialism (Soviet/Capitalist). Best guides are inward spiritual ones. Don't have to call it God if you don't to, but humans left to their own devices are dissappointing. Emma inspires me (a lot), but at a certain point we hit the buffers.
Probably your best examples of anarchism working are in religious contexts, anabaptists, first Christians. Probably your worst examples are in secular anachist groupings that always seem to have the stick behind the back (eg Aragon in the 30's, Black Block etc).
Governments are founded on violence. Few governments exist today whose foundation doesn't rest on the backs of thousands upon thousands of corpses. Governments perpetuate violence against supposed 'enemies', all in the name of protecting 'the people'. And / or because 'the enemy' disagrees with them / "they hate us. They hate our freedom." The notion that government is "simply the efficient management of a community from a clear authority" requires no small amount of historical nievete.
The threat of violence if anyone steps out of line is what keeps society going, democracy is reliant on fear, and it is enforced by such means as the police or military
Capitalism isn't the only system with blood on its hands; communism comes to mind. Communism has caused as much or more sorrow to Africa as capitalism has. But if you think anarchy is a cure for what ills Africa take a look at Somalia. Human beings are violent creatures and whatever system we adopt will lead to violence in the long run. Stop being naive.
1."Companies aren't going to build say cars might as less things for purifying water without an incentive; and individuals don't know how to make those things."
In a dictatorship of the proletariat, one specific freedom is the freedom of knowlodge since education would be free. This would allow many people who just love to build cars learn the mechanics to do so. So goes along with any other job.
Human beings have been violent since we evolved. If humans didn't have governments to fight for we'd go right back to tribes fighting over resources and land.
You really think most people would work without the threat of homelessness and/or lack of food? Even if you have a few car enthusiasts who are willing I doubt you'll find many people who are willing to smelt the metal and search for the oil.
So you think that mass violence in the form of government is better than human fighting human? would you prefer it on a large possibly earth destroying or small scale? Have you ever not worked for a week?I think most people would find it unbearable to not work in some shape or form especially if they work for themselves and know what they are doing directly effects them,(sure people dont like working beaureaucratic desk jobs that dont contribute to anything this is what anarchy wants to abolish)
I seriously doubt we could maintain our infrastructure without a government; and I for one have no desire to revert to a 19th century or worse lifestyle.
The fact is without the big bad government we'd still be chucking spears at mammoths.
If you're expecting some Utopian solution to appear and fix all your problems you're shit out of luck.
who said anarchism is Utopian?What kind of an attitude of "oh well nothings perfect just forget about it" get anyone? How can you prove government was a necessity for human development and we wouldnt have developed anyways?..oh wait you cant. It is painfully obvious you have never read any anarcho-syndicalist literature which is clearly against a "revert to a 19th century lifestyle". I would suggest reading "After the Revolution" by by Diego Abad de Santillan before trying to refute(or Bakunin)
Humans for the most part aren't content to be on a level playing field. We're social animals after all and all social species have a pecking order. Get rid of a government and people will form tribes. Over time that tribe will become a civilization and the whole mess will start over again.
too many assumptions w/ human nature.the thing with humans is for some reason we are obsessed with freedom and equality(we at least say we are) that has been one constant trend against every government since the begining. Tell the slaves that revolted, the workers who fought for their rights, women who demanded they have a vote,blacks in America who wanted equal treatment..were social and thus hierarchial is the worst excuse for authoritarianism ever, u are obviously not familiar with oppression
Exactly how are you oppressed? All of the things you've listed happened decades if not centuries ago. Capitalism was not to blame for woman's inability to vote or segregation. You'll find that no true libertarian is a sexist or racist.
Emma Goldman was born in Lithuania, within the Russian Empire, but she was both ethnically and culturally Lithuanian not Russia as mentioned in this video.
blenog 2 months ago
Maybe Anarchism could be achieved by a growing number simply ignoring the state and the law. I think that it's called agorism. So people won't give anymore power to the state and the power of the state over us would vanish through an evolutionary process. I welcome responses, I'm trying to understand anarchy and ways to achive it.
dumbassbeat15 2 months ago
Someone link of pamphlet she wrote; Emma Goldman - The Modern Phase of Anarchy, can't find would appreciate some help.
kotkee 2 months ago
If anarchy is the absence of government and authority, how does an anarchist movement get started? With a leader, and people to follow that leader. And voila, you have a basic form of government.
I would like to know why you anarchists believe what you do. Have you seen evidence in history that anarchy has made life better for people? Do you see this in Somalia? Cambodia? No, you do not.
Anarchy will never survive on its own, it can only fight an established government.
I welcome your responses.
MissSavannahJ 3 months ago
@MissSavannahJ Why not have that "leader" follow the people rather than the people follow that leader? Voila, the people are the government.
HybridD91 3 months ago
There is no set leader. How does a grassroot movement usually start? with an idea, inspiration from an individual, they usually arnt the leader but we find inspiration from the actions taken from a person who we admire.
scienceatheism 2 months ago
fucken hell this is so ground-breakingly informative and the top video on the suggestion list is revolution of hair colour. Go world
rayexcellente 7 months ago
Fuck Theodore Rosevelt!
skulldrix 8 months ago 2
haha I think that just because this person posts this on here (I'm using this to study for a test in Political Theory) doesn't mean that he or she is an anarchist. Stop arguing over whether anarchism is right or wrong. If it was the way forward, it would have succeeded already or at least gotten very close. However, that's not the case. So, obviously it's just a niche philosophy that doesn't really have enough merit to ever consider putting into practice.
MrDrewboggess 9 months ago
@MrDrewboggess History doesn't just naturally fall at the right conclusion and neither do people.
Were the playing field made level, merit would indeed come into play however the state and co have: Armys, the media, control over jobs and resource distribution, religion, intelligence services, assassins, pigs, indoctrinated citizens, cowards, the apathetic and ignorant, all in its favour.
With the advance of technology we are starting see some of the tenants of the anarchists bare fruit.
FoxKnightJ07 8 months ago
@MrDrewboggess yes well the two ideas don't necessarily counterpose. in fact anarchism did succeed. the spanish civil war is a great example. i would argue that existentialism is a pillar in capitalist ideology as it embraces the 'individual' which is not what anarchism is all about, especially anarcho-syndicalism. so its not a Nietzschen philosophy as you have termed it, and im not sure what you meant by it not having enough merit?
carovski 7 months ago
@carovski the basic principles of anarchism are present in a lot more political thought other than Nietzschen, and is practiced by many different societies who run successfully, take a look at the zapatistas for example. :)
carovski 7 months ago
We should do away with communist guerrillas in Latin America. And replace them with anarchist communist guerrillas who would fight for real liberty, democracy, and equality. There was an anarchist movement in Cuba after Castro took power. I wish they won, but many of those countries would be easy targets to American business imperialists.
4500jas 9 months ago
@4500jas How does an anarchist fight for democracy?!? That is completely against their values. If they are fighting for democracy, they are revolutionaries, not anarchists.
MissSavannahJ 3 months ago
what is fascinating is that you could probably sit goldman and roosevelt down in a room and have a productive discussion on any topic.
abortfailure7646 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy has been here all along ,But the Oil coporations life depends on covering this up,Find the real deal, a free energy device at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the energy revolution!
faerydhhlo 1 year ago
Thanks a lot for this documentary about a great woman and feminist pioneer.
"No one has yet realized the wealth of sympathy, the kindness and generosity hidden in the soul of a child. The effort of every true education should be to unlock that treasure."
Ilkamy 1 year ago 2
@Ilkamy beautiful... so perfect
GuitarGirlWA 1 year ago
Was Emma Goldman a friend of the wobblies?
reuabmik 1 year ago
@reuabmik I believe she was sympathetic to their aims. For more on this read "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn (may he rest in peace).
mojorhythm 11 months ago
It should come as no surprise that modern day feminist scholars make very little or no mention of Emma Goldman. They see the solution to women's liberation through government action only. In other words they still see women as weak helpless damsels in need of rescuing only they want Big Brother to be their knight and shining armor instead.
GoldCoinCollector 1 year ago
@GoldCoinCollector
I disagree. While liberal feminists do want government action, many feminists read and celebrate Goldman for many reasons.
velenofiore 1 year ago
@velenofiore It is true that she is sometimes mentioned and celebrated for many reasons, chief among them being that she was a strong advocate for birth control. Overall, however, you don't hear that much mention of her compared to someone like Susan B. Anthony. If you read up on what modern day feminists have to say, the vast majority of them are in favor of rigid state control in the name of keeping women "safe" and have no interest in women being "liberated".
GoldCoinCollector 1 year ago
Ron Paul 2012
Goldman was Jewish right? I'm amazed by the number of great Jewish libertarians
Why do they continue to vote for the right left statists?
RunLiberty 1 year ago
@RunLiberty Emma's family was Orthodox Jewish but she herself was an atheist.
The reason they vote for these statists is the reason everyone does. The state provides them with the same sort of false sense of security that all governments have given their sheep. As such, some people are so hopelessly dependant upon the system that they will fight and die to protect it. If you are an anarchist, you must learn to understand these people for they will be your biggest obstacle.
theoneandonlygrod 1 year ago
i like taoism too. people are best left alone from state interference I think, any state or organisation. Good stuff. People are self serving and frightened now.
superchangeit 1 year ago
emma goldman is awesome!
akaskyscraper 1 year ago
is this how goldman sachs got their name?
4Th3Truthful 1 year ago
LONG LIVE ANARCHY!
Nomad1718 1 year ago
ANARCHY IS TRUE FREEDOM NOT DEMOCRACY
amcanmike 1 year ago
@amcanmike Reagan Youth?
Em0s4reP30pl32 1 year ago
I adore this woman. But I’m sad that she didn’t join Nestor Makhno’s anarchist movement.
Nazizombiesdie 1 year ago
No, technically, you can vote in anarchism, if the person you vote in refuses to govern.
libertarianjury 1 year ago
im jst a pure anarchist always have been
megadethizbeast15 1 year ago
Anarchy is the table top which allows for a wide range of beliefs(even non anarchy) and practices. Socialism is the legs of the table which makes sure that it stays this way with a non heirachal government. I'm a Socialist but Syndacalism Anarchy catches my fancy but I see Anarchy as more of a bridge to a better tomorrow instead of a permenant system. Emma Goldman was ahead of her time for sure.
MasterAdam100 1 year ago
'Anarchy',just like 'dictatorship',is simply a generic term that bcan find practical application in any process of social organization,from capitalism to communism,& from family life to voluntary associations.
Orthodox Communism & Socialism,both,are fundamentally anarchist theories in that they're consumated in non-coercive,popular civil societies.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
I hate how God is attacked by anarchist. Like the only way anarchy can survive is if we're all athiest. it's an absolutly ridiculous notion.
FuCuMao 1 year ago
We are against the Religions that govern our lives and punish people for "sins".
We are not against God itself.
AnarchysSoldier 1 year ago 2
@FuCuMao the idea of god only exists to further subjugate you to tyranny. As long as you consider yourself worthless, you are worthless.
hockey2333 1 year ago
I'm not christian. I just belive that there is a god. that doesn't make me worthless. with no god, what worth do you have? In that sence all you do is eat and sleep and then you die in the blink of an eye, and you rot in the ground. thats the end. Besides, scientificaly speaking, God, is true, as there is more evidence for him than against him. Para-Psychology is now an accepted form of science. But my whole point is, how is it Anarchy when, in her eyes, no one is alowed to worship God?
FuCuMao 1 year ago
@FuCuMao She's not saying that no one is allowed to worship God. She just believed that God should not be used, like many churches do, to strongarm people into doing what the church wants you to do because it's "right" or "it's God's will". You can still worship God. Just don't be a douche about it. ;)
theoneandonlygrod 1 year ago
@theoneandonlygrod well said
LesterMartin 1 year ago
Anarchy is the way, the only freedom man kind will ever have. GOverment does nothing but suppress you and restrict you. I believe Anarchy will one day rule, and Goverment will collapse
rawriiscat 1 year ago
I agree man
SlashIsRockNRoll2010 1 year ago
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."~George Washington
clayrains 1 year ago
@clayrains the 1st pres really said that ?
RedEyePergo 1 year ago
Yeah. It's an authentic George Washington quote. He also admitted that the Illuminati had begun to infiltrate America. People call that a crazy conspiracy theory, but scans of the original letter are available for download at the Library of Congress Web site. @clayrains
clayrains 1 year ago
-A-
seddut 1 year ago
Emma Goldman I love you
zzanzak 1 year ago 4
this bitch was CRAZY!!
SOTORA619 1 year ago
"Forcing or preventing people from form such collectives on the basis that they are not practicing true anarchy is a statist mentality in and of itself."
They are not practicing anarchism... Ask Emma, ask Malatesta, Revachol...
Let me put at this way: Some economists use the word anarchy just as a "against the state" word... That statement don't mean anything!
Please dudes, don't make those sad affirmatives... Anarchism was born in the mind of the working class!
WORKING CLASS!!!!!
paunocu666 1 year ago
Anarchism is without adjectives. We anarchists should reject formal society, and form collectives on the basis of what works best for the people participating. I'm not trying to detract the socialism at all, in fact I think much of the ideas can be blended with other schools of thought.
And stop worshipping past anarchist thinkers. Society should formed on what is best for it's participants, not because of how great a thinker Goldman was. We simply take their ideas, not mythologize them.
TheAdamTheory 1 year ago
I do not worship anyone. Those thinkers represent Anarchism(at least in the place where I live)... We do not use their image in banners or anything like that, we are not Stalinists.
Let me put in this way:
What is anarcho-nacionalism ? (yes, that is ridiculous, I know, but exist)
What is anarcho-primitivism ? ( wtf )
So how long can you affirm that nationalism and primitivism can blend with anarchism ? That is the point... The same with capitalism.
By the way sorry about my English comrade.
paunocu666 1 year ago
Besides, most anarchists are kikes anyway. Goldman, Chomsky, Krotpkin, Bukanin.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
neither kropotkin or bakunin were jewish.
TeflonMaster 1 year ago
bakunin and proudhon were also horrifying antisemitic.
it's really sad that anarchists weren't making much of a progress when it came to equal rights for jewish people. you should read proudhons writings about jews - that shit is repulsive
FOIIAD 1 year ago
And sorry for my sarcasm comrade. It's a habit lol. I'm not accusing you of creating a cult of personality, I'm just saying that many of those thinkers were just...well thinkers. They have good ideas, but they have no authority on what is "true anarchism," and it is up to us individuals to decide how to run our lives free from rulers.
TheAdamTheory 1 year ago
And let me put at this way... If you ask to worker from Spain/Brazil/Ukraine/Argentina... (all places where anarchism worked not just as an idea) what is anarchism is about... they will say: Libertarian Communism...
Do not try to get socialism from the history of anarchism, this is RIDICULOUS ... this sound as a "you tube" talk...
Search information about the Anarchist communes in Catalonia... That was an anarchist society, no PROPERTY, no STATE, no GOD... who destroyed that ? Stalin... :)
paunocu666 1 year ago
im related to her. lol
QUOZO777 2 years ago
LOL TR was called a rough rider....Anway, Emma Goldman was an amazing woman of her time. Her story is really cool.
jackerooskie 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anyone who kills Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an international hero. Anarchists of the world unite! We must support those in Iran who desire to be liberated from this tyrant. Apply pressure(by all means necessary) to any governments or corporations that support him or his regime. To those in the Iranian government: distance yourself from Ahmadinejad or you will be destroyed with him. Death to the dictator! To those in the Green movement continue to fight. Nothing great comes without great sacrifice
33Zarathustra2013 2 years ago
As an anarchist, I can't stand it when my fellow anarchists fight. It's pretty counter-productive. The fact is that all forms of anarchy are voluntary. Since individualist anarchy is the rawest form of anarchy, in a truely free-market individuals are free to form societies under the principle that no one has the right to rule.
Forcing or preventing people from form such collectives on the basis that they are not practicing true anarchy is a statist mentality in and of itself.
TheAdamTheory 2 years ago 29
I'm glad i'm not the only one that thinks the same.
ohbobsagetpiss 2 years ago
That's quite a interesting point. But Anarchism is not just "against the state"... anarchism is against hierarchy.
"Anarchism seeks to arouse the consciousness of oppression, the desire for a better society, and a sense of the necessity for unceasing warfare against capitalism and the State." - Emma Goldman
Maybe there is a way to factorize anarchism... but is impossible to not see socialism as a common factor in an anarchist mind.
And yes, Emma was not a statist... she was collectivist.
paunocu666 1 year ago
Don't you think life is a combination of collectivism and individualism? In my view true freedom would have to be a combination of both. Collective freedom not invading individual freedom and vice versa. I think it's possible. At least people could employ the largest amount of freedom in their lives by applying that principle.
highervis 1 year ago
Well there can't be any government issued currency
highervis 1 year ago
@TheAdamTheory Capitalism is a fraud.
amazingyou1uber 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You people are so confused. This video isn't about anarchy. This is Communism.
Anarchy means no order, no government, no expectations. Anarchy has no means of production or distribution.
Anarchy means anything requiring the use of authoritative power is farce. Therefore ideas such as equality, justice, freedom and fairness simply do not have any meaning because there is nobody to protect them. Especially if they are too weak to defend their own liberties.
deadbutmoving 2 years ago
Read some history about anarchism. Then come back and apologize for exhibiting your ignorance.
GuyaRicanMC 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@GuyaRicanMC
Perhaps, you are too stupid to realize how the communist have infiltrated the Anarchist. The history of Anarchism is messed up because the communist have infected it.
True Anarchy is oppsed to any and all social norms, collectivism, and/or expectations. True anarchy is purely individualistic.
Obviously this supposed "history of anarchy" that you speak of does not exist. All I ever see is communist disguising themselves as anarchists.
deadbutmoving 2 years ago
Ughh you really are a moron, aren't you? How about you actually look up the history of anarchism instead of pulling shit out your ass? Do you know who Mikhail Bakunin is? Peter Kropotkin? Proudhon? Karl Marx had his beefs with both Bakunin and Proudhon so this "communist infiltration" you speak of is just plain nonsense.
The only anarchist who would come close to your definition of "True Anarchy" is Max Stirner. And he is an exception within the history of anarchism. Please do some research.
GuyaRicanMC 2 years ago
@GuyaRicanMC
You are the moron, the people you have just mentioned are a bunch of socialists, in my veiw.
Let me give you an example:
Mikhail Bakunin believed in Collectivist Anarchism. Which calls for revolution and redistribution. This is an inheriently Statist tactic.
The only true anarchists are Individualistic Anarchist like Max Stirner. Who are against ALL FORMS OF STATISM AND/OR COLLECTIVISM. Including, but not limited to: social norms, organization, and redistribution.
deadbutmoving 2 years ago
please refrain from the ad hominem attacks, even when you feel justified by speaking to a brick wall of an unthinking person. calling them a moron won't help anything.
and when it comes to discussing various anarchist schools of thought, the little ditty 'karl marx's whiskers were 12 inches long' pops into my head and i realize it's all just squabbling. the things that are universal are most important.
intrepgun 2 years ago
it means that authoritative power must be proven legitimate. like when a child runs into a road, you stop them. that is legitimate use of authority over someone.
with power distributed equally, as opposed to centralized power, liberties are very hard to remove from a person or group of persons.
intrepgun 2 years ago
definitely [teched246]. which is probably why christian anarchism, read about in the works of jaque ellul and others, makes so much sense to me.
theshilohrose 2 years ago
Anarchy based on one simple premise: only you know what's best for you. When you accept or recognize someone else as a figure of authority you are pretty much saying that this person know's whats best for you.
teched246 2 years ago 48
and only the people know whats best for the people. No one being can ever know what is best for a large group of people; thats what the people should decide.
ramberghini 2 years ago
@teched246 Direct action.
SamtheMan0728 1 year ago
@teched246 yes
compositesoul 1 year ago
An evolved race wouldn't even care about society- thier focus would be beyond the mundane. We need to evolve.
teched246 2 years ago
sounds like a set up to make Emma Goldman into a terrorist...
I mean seriously shot at point blank 2 times? where were the bodyguards? This is the fucking president of United States for god sakes...
I mean if it was so easy to kill a president how come no one taught of killing George Bush or something?
jystyle 2 years ago
Thank you all very much for the explanation. I guess a belief in anarchism then relies on the belief humanity is good & morally concious? I like the idea it represents, but I don't believe in that. Judging by the fact people in countries without organised healthcare are dying at this very moment and most people are content driving a big car/shopping instead of helping them out. Not to mention I think morals are something changeable, something dependable on culture. Guess it's not for me, then.
Laerlend 2 years ago
we can do it. slowly but surley. dont give up so qick. it starts with your attitude and the way you treat others. governments do not work. look around you. read about empires and government. humans are the only thing that can make this world run properly.
jibaro4 2 years ago
Our current system upholds value systems that refine our worst traits,and a tremendous amount of money and intervention is required to do it,(see "the century of self",read "Dumbing us down",and consider the social atmosphere created by wage slavery and constant war,people are put in situations where they must beg and compete for crumbs,kill in wars ect. remove the systemic causes of the problems and then we can work on solutions.
kviapunx 2 years ago
and removing the systemic causes of these problems requires very few things to start. workers must collectively place their hands firmly in their pockets. stop the machine entirely. then, again collectively, make the most simple demands known and met. in my eyes the most important one is to admit to our crimes and immediately stop committing them. punish those who enacted them, and move on from there in an open fashion. that seems to me to be a logical 'first' step in the large-scale department.
intrepgun 2 years ago
You only have to believe that people are generally capable of doing good. Then you try to set up a society that promotes that innate quality (an anarchist one) instead one that exploits selfishness and the like. Your half way there!
wolfetho 2 years ago
Maybe, but then again, let's assume human nature is essentially corrupt. Goverments are still run by humans, so where does that leave us?
GabrielKorp 2 years ago
Actually anarchism is not based on the belief that humanity is good, it recognizes that it isnt and that if you give people power or control of other people they will abuse it,this is also why it is not capitalist,people use wealth and control of resources etc. to exploit and control people.We recognize both sides of human nature and the need to develop our better qualities and that only through freedom and the responsability it comes with will we reach our potential..
kviapunx 2 years ago 3
I'm going to ask a probably very stupid question, but I'd appreciate a non-stupid answer. =) I like the little I know of anarchism, especially Emma Goldman's ideas. I don't think governement needs to be involved the way it is now, etc etc. There's one thing that bothers me though; what exactly would happen to the losers, chronically ill people etc, in an anachistic society? Given that there is no governement to give them free care anymore, how would they survive? Charity is hardly enough.
Laerlend 2 years ago
You're forgetting the point here.
The government don't supply the health-care, the people the government control do. Do you think these people would allow others to die, whether forced or not? I don't. It's not about charity, it never is. It's about what one man is willing to do for another, because they like doing it, and people will ALWAYS like healing others, and people will always like supporting that.
joneselius 2 years ago
Joneselius comment is exactly right, we wouldn't sit by idly while people suffered from illness we would take care of them because that's what's needed to advance in society. They wouldn't be doing it for money or notoriety or power.
retrograderenegades 2 years ago
The government doesn't give people free care, another aspect of Anarchy is that everyone would work to benefit humanity. So we would take care of the ill.
retrograderenegades 2 years ago
With respect to this brave woman ,and her war for individual liberty......
TheElenay 2 years ago
Watching this is another painful reminder of how I was brought up to percieve something a different way than what it is...
I always thought/was told that anarchy was the essence of all evil; that it meant chaos and violence, and 'every man for himself'... quite the opposite it would seem; and it would also seem that anarchy might best represent many of my ideals... life never ceases to amaze me...
irontoad30 2 years ago 5
That is the way I feel and I think many others do, but don't share.
rolpho 2 years ago
It's interesting to learn many histories. thanks for posting this.
sylvestermeow 2 years ago
How very articulate mrsoundwave. Idiot!
Vinseneb 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fucking dirty looking scum bag 4 eye bitch!
mrsoundwave 2 years ago
Comment removed
mekanik187 2 years ago
GROW UP
mekanik187 2 years ago
Anarchism is the only way of life where love and peace are it's both method and goal. It's not a dream, some wishfull thinking, it is a nessesity. Everyone is different, no one is equal, and therefore everyone should be respected! Peace, love and power to us people!
NoZenIsZen 2 years ago 2
Ah, Emma Goldman. Brilliant, courageous, uncompromising. Some hold up Lenin as the perfect Revolutionary- but he betrayed his own ideas and morals, in the end. Goldman was the pefect Revolutionary- she would not betray her ideals for anything, even for the "condemnation of [her] own closest Comrades".
RedAthena1919 2 years ago 2
Well there was Mikhail Bacinin also.
He tried to get the point across that people should not politicise anarchism as then you get an inevitible control structure. He was also kicked out of the Marxist ideology. Great man actually, similar to Emma.
Emma has some fine works, I like her pieces on God as the ultimate nothing. And her essays on the education system of bred conformity.
joneselius 2 years ago
Bacunin... Too much coffee O.O
joneselius 2 years ago
Well, yes, and he seemed to have the same sort of Nietzschean twist to his philosophy as Goldman did (though, obviously, his was placed in before Nietzsche wrote what he wrote, where Goldman used his ideas well after he had set them out, and she's used them more extensively).
RedAthena1919 2 years ago
True. But everyone copies someone in the end.
Each to their own I suppose. I just like reading her stuff, it's easy to read and not overly cluttered like Bacunins can sometimes be; with political overtones.
I don't think looking round these days - with how easily people are duped with both propaganda and media lies - that we're going to approach anything near to anarchy, not before there's a completely totalitarian government first. History is about to hit refresh in my opinion.
joneselius 2 years ago
great ideas Philo and Openyoumind.. Finally good, intelligent conversation on youtube:)
asleepinthehall 2 years ago
(A)
soulja4lyfe 2 years ago 2
I am the only person who can own my life and nobody no matter how elected or how powerful has the moral or legal authority to tell me, "I have a higher claim on your life than you do and I demand your money for society otherwise I will imprison you and brand you as unpatriotic."
^That's all anarchy is people. You have the right to govern yourself and nobody else has the right to tell you how to live your life.
Boxmanboxman 2 years ago 3
Anarchy is not the absence of order. It is not the absence of hierarchy. It is the recognition that a suit of hat, no matter how fine, or no matter how 'official' cannot give you moral superiority over someone, on the basis of some 'system' of people. 'Government cannot exist without the consent of the governed.' Actually, when there is the consent of the individual, it's not really 'government', at least not in anarchist philosophy. Then it is just a voluntarist social structure.
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago 4
Thank you!!!!
terrestial63 2 years ago
Anarchy cant work. The masses are stupid, selfish and lazy. If there is no order there is nothing. I know this will get negative comments but is it not true?
JackotheJackel 2 years ago
I agree, anarchy is the most pure and beautiful concept, but unfortunately humans are too crude and would ruin it.
thevandal2 2 years ago
Fredom works. More freedom works better.
Goverment is a mas of stupid, selfish and lazy people.
petahiYT 2 years ago
You think it won't work, but we have never truly had a free society. We are born and constantly told to give away our power to authority. When people feel powerless they also feel helpless. It is because we are constantly trying to meet our basic needs just to survive, that it leaves little time for education, time to think, so it may appear as though most are stupid, selfish and lazy. It is not true, most are just forced to live in survival mode at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Freethisearth 2 years ago
So we need the idiots in the government to help them? The point of anarchy is the idea that you can just say "FUCK THAT SHIT" when ever they say something stupid.
Lamnont 2 years ago
We should all be fighting in the streets for democracy, against illegitimate authority rooted in domination and greed. Abolish pyramids, the ruling class, the system of top down control which restricts opportunities to fully develop as a human beings, which denies self-determination, which imposes false choices, mandates conformity, muzzles dissent, creates false enemies, rewards destruction, propagates ignorance and shackles truth.
LegalizedTheft 2 years ago 8
I agree with you. We have the capability to provide every person on the planet with CO2 emission free energy, shelter, food, education, and health care and also have more free time if we limit the work week to 20 hrs. We need to stop placing value on things and money and value the well being of the people and the planet we share. You can't eat gold, diamonds, or computer chips. No one has the right to deny anyone the use of the land to live, grow and harvest food from. We need to share freely.
Freethisearth 2 years ago 2
Fuck democracy, the Government is a tumor, not an organ!
Lamnont 2 years ago 3
Goldman was one of the greatest people to have lived.
PhiloCentinel 2 years ago 4
Ryan Faulk, and Ron Paul are cool too.
Lamnont 2 years ago
Ron Paul's a bit too much of a capitalist and statist for my liking.
PhiloCentinel 2 years ago 7
Nader is the best.
Or anarchist Jello Biafra.
Nederlandac 2 years ago
the Austrian school (Ron Paul's guideline) is Anarcho-Capitalist. This is the only way anarchy would work, unless there was an organization that took down business which prospered for profit (falling short of the definition of anarchy).
openyourmind678 2 years ago
Ron Paul's guideline may be an anarchist one, but he himself is an obvious statist- he tried to become the president, not abolish the president. As for Anarcho-Capitalism: my objections to certain facets are too numerous and complex to elaborate here, but in short- I believe mutualism is best.
PhiloCentinel 2 years ago 2
I think Ron Paul's intentions were clear. Once he took office he was going to take a pay cut, get rid of the fed, the IRS and the department of education, and bring from our troops from every foreign soil. I got the impression he was trying to reduce the state from the top down...
openyourmind678 2 years ago
Well, I would say the way to eliminate government is through market means (Agorism), rather than through the govt. its self. That would just be prolonging the problem, when the are faster, less risky, and more ethical ways to do so.
PhiloCentinel 2 years ago
market means which don't involve capitalism... im interested, explain?
openyourmind678 2 years ago
Well, a market is simply a supply and demand, an exchange of goods and services, correct? Well, I identify capitalism with the systematic excesses in free marketism. In capitalism- anything goes. I do not believe that a person should, for instace, be able to "own" land that he does not occupy, or own the means of production of another. That is why I am not a capitalist- because in capitalism anything can be owned. I don't believe anything can or should be legitematly owned.
PhiloCentinel 2 years ago
well without authority, who would regulate people from accumulating wealth and buying up land or labor intensive industry?
openyourmind678 2 years ago
Well, you wouldn't be able too. It wouldn't be something bought or sold- the only way you could own it is by occupancy, use, etc. It would seem that the only thing that keeps unused land and the means of other people's labor in the hands of those who control them is authority, in the form of the government, supposedly protecting property rights.
PhiloCentinel 2 years ago
so what would be the means of exchange? just take what you want and apply Social Darwinism?
openyourmind678 2 years ago
Well, I would be opposed to any means of exchange having a monopoly in use or a total control of the ability to meet the demand for currency. But, as I said, this would not apply to things like land; so land would be considered owned by the person occupying or using it. If you farm the land or build a house on it, then its yours for the time; you just can't claim to own massive tracts of idle, unused land, especially when it could provide for people who need it.
PhiloCentinel 2 years ago
you need to work the police from the inside, to turn them against one another...to undermine their ideas..
mactopolis 2 years ago 2
this place FAILED !!!
deadscottyisalive 2 years ago 2
I'm using this in my Women's Studies class today!! thank you!!
belovedideas 2 years ago 5
Cool.
OttOmOlOtOv 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is a bull-shit Liberal Capitalist Propaganda Video! It's "selective intent" stinks to high heaven!
Take this: " From each according to their ability, from each according to their needs". Isn't this JUST THE WAY the vast majority of humanity have ALWAYS LIVED? -Yet here it is branded "hopeless Idealism"! Our economy is in vast trouble NOW - because worthless, brainless, idle idiots have been garnering vast wealth & influence! THAT WILL CHANGE!
PhotonDrive 2 years ago
You anarchists who post anarchistic messages on a million dollar capitalistic channel (Youtube) are bloody hypocrites. Haha. But I liked the video though. Very educational.
generationy1992 2 years ago
hmm? Taking advantage of the resources available is hardy hypocritical. No one is saying sites like Youtube are inherently evil. We're against capitalism itself, not against any particular products developed under it.
jortylbro 2 years ago 2
You said that you're against Capitalism itself but not the products of Capitalism? You're contradicting yourself. The products of capitalism is Capitalism. It's just like buying a can of Pepsi which IS supporting the corporate suits to profit. How could you be against capitalism when you're utilizing it's products which would benefit the rich. In the case of Youtube, being a youtuber supports the Youtube corp in some way just like buying a can of Pepsi supports Pepsi.
Thanks for replying :)
generationy1992 2 years ago
Marxists believe that Capitalism will create wealth, but then collapse under its own immorality. It transcends to Socialism & then Communism.
Unfortunately, Marx never detailed how all this would actually occur, nor how a functional Communist system would work. His ideas are about as functional as the Qur'an in the modern world.
YTConservativeCensor 2 years ago
What does this have to do with anarchism?
jortylbro 2 years ago
real anarchists would know who Emma Goldman is.
riotcunt86 2 years ago 8
I was responding to someone else who was talking about Marxism. If you click the View All comments, it'll make sense.
jortylbro 2 years ago
pffft
Poizon67 2 years ago
What?
jortylbro 2 years ago
Pepsi is just sugary syrup and carbonated water. Youtube is just a website that hosts videos. They are not capitalism. Capitalism is the ownership of the means of production by an arbitrary person for the purposes of profit rather than by the workers or for the needs of the community. It also is about the class differences that inevitably rise from a competitive market.
jortylbro 2 years ago 2
Boycotting is not an effective means to fight capitalism. I might as well kill myself and do as much good. There are still millions of people willing to give their money for these products. Anyways, even if the market for superfluous products ceases to exist, our needs for food, water, and housing are still controlled through private means. Not much we can do about that through boycotting. It isn't about who has the money at the moment, it's about the system overall that is enforced by police.
jortylbro 2 years ago 2
A revolution is what anarchism needs. Not some pussy ass boycott. Throw a bomb! Assasinate! You can't fight bullets with flowers. These are what anarchists should do to live up to what they stand for whitout contradicting themselves. Fight the police for you rights to defend your liberty. I mean 'they' because I'm not an anarchist but I do love history.
generationy1992 2 years ago
I actually agree with you here. I definitely believe we should try kicking things up a notch and help give people a foot to stand on.
Unfortunately many radical groups tend to be watered down with liberal actions. We need to move away from things like protests and symbolic actions and actually do more useful things. Steal money and food and give it away to the poor. Break into an unused house or building and help a family squat there. Sabotage police stations.
jortylbro 2 years ago 2
I agree.
generationy1992 2 years ago
The one with the bigger fist always wins in a war of might. In a battle of ideas one can simply make logical arguments to convince people. I dont need to kill a police officer if I can convince an officer. If anarchism came to be through a system of violence it can easily be destroyed through a sytem of violence.
krissy4nik 2 years ago 2
Like what Emma Goldman said; Steal bread if you're hungry. Or something like that. Food, water, and housing can be controlled through collective means. Look at Jewish kibbutz. I believe that anarchism can work.
generationy1992 2 years ago
Anti-Christ Emma Goldman: useful idiot.
novice8814 2 years ago
so did she encourage political assassination? or did she just speak of it in her speech?
Sean2046 2 years ago
At first I thought I was going to like this video. The first paragraph of the description was dead on, but once I got past that, I was greatly disappointed. To me, this is not anarchy at all, this is simply amoral atheism in the guise of something that also happens to be against the establishment of A government. Admittedly, I only watched the first two minutes of the video. At that point, I had heard and read enough to know that this is not truly anarchy, not the sense I use the word, at least.
stealthyeliminator 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In america violent anarchy is a reactive mind, non-solution
peacefully protesting and informing the people is the only way to win. A confrontation of an informed public is the only way. Violence soon will only bring a police state quicker. Stop violence during protests and amass every body with a working brain. join the infowar. and buy ammunition/food/metals.
Idolcruisefix 3 years ago
...Understand folks resistance to corrupt religion, but blanket rejection creates an unnessary obstacle to understanding and leads you into morbid preoccupation with materialism (Soviet/Capitalist). Best guides are inward spiritual ones. Don't have to call it God if you don't to, but humans left to their own devices are dissappointing. Emma inspires me (a lot), but at a certain point we hit the buffers.
shallowcoat 3 years ago
Probably your best examples of anarchism working are in religious contexts, anabaptists, first Christians. Probably your worst examples are in secular anachist groupings that always seem to have the stick behind the back (eg Aragon in the 30's, Black Block etc).
shallowcoat 3 years ago
"The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence"
How can all forms of government rest on violence? It is simply the efficient management of a community from a clear authority.
Bloodlovefreak 3 years ago
Governments are founded on violence. Few governments exist today whose foundation doesn't rest on the backs of thousands upon thousands of corpses. Governments perpetuate violence against supposed 'enemies', all in the name of protecting 'the people'. And / or because 'the enemy' disagrees with them / "they hate us. They hate our freedom." The notion that government is "simply the efficient management of a community from a clear authority" requires no small amount of historical nievete.
Mishyana 3 years ago
The threat of violence if anyone steps out of line is what keeps society going, democracy is reliant on fear, and it is enforced by such means as the police or military
polnikki 3 years ago
Capitalism isn't the only system with blood on its hands; communism comes to mind. Communism has caused as much or more sorrow to Africa as capitalism has. But if you think anarchy is a cure for what ills Africa take a look at Somalia. Human beings are violent creatures and whatever system we adopt will lead to violence in the long run. Stop being naive.
Yerzriknot 3 years ago
1."Companies aren't going to build say cars might as less things for purifying water without an incentive; and individuals don't know how to make those things."
In a dictatorship of the proletariat, one specific freedom is the freedom of knowlodge since education would be free. This would allow many people who just love to build cars learn the mechanics to do so. So goes along with any other job.
hiphophead909 3 years ago
Human beings have been violent since we evolved. If humans didn't have governments to fight for we'd go right back to tribes fighting over resources and land.
You really think most people would work without the threat of homelessness and/or lack of food? Even if you have a few car enthusiasts who are willing I doubt you'll find many people who are willing to smelt the metal and search for the oil.
Yerzriknot 3 years ago
So you think that mass violence in the form of government is better than human fighting human? would you prefer it on a large possibly earth destroying or small scale? Have you ever not worked for a week?I think most people would find it unbearable to not work in some shape or form especially if they work for themselves and know what they are doing directly effects them,(sure people dont like working beaureaucratic desk jobs that dont contribute to anything this is what anarchy wants to abolish)
tcarr89 3 years ago
I seriously doubt we could maintain our infrastructure without a government; and I for one have no desire to revert to a 19th century or worse lifestyle.
The fact is without the big bad government we'd still be chucking spears at mammoths.
If you're expecting some Utopian solution to appear and fix all your problems you're shit out of luck.
Yerzriknot 3 years ago
who said anarchism is Utopian?What kind of an attitude of "oh well nothings perfect just forget about it" get anyone? How can you prove government was a necessity for human development and we wouldnt have developed anyways?..oh wait you cant. It is painfully obvious you have never read any anarcho-syndicalist literature which is clearly against a "revert to a 19th century lifestyle". I would suggest reading "After the Revolution" by by Diego Abad de Santillan before trying to refute(or Bakunin)
tcarr89 3 years ago
Humans for the most part aren't content to be on a level playing field. We're social animals after all and all social species have a pecking order. Get rid of a government and people will form tribes. Over time that tribe will become a civilization and the whole mess will start over again.
Yerzriknot 3 years ago
too many assumptions w/ human nature.the thing with humans is for some reason we are obsessed with freedom and equality(we at least say we are) that has been one constant trend against every government since the begining. Tell the slaves that revolted, the workers who fought for their rights, women who demanded they have a vote,blacks in America who wanted equal treatment..were social and thus hierarchial is the worst excuse for authoritarianism ever, u are obviously not familiar with oppression
tcarr89 3 years ago
Exactly how are you oppressed? All of the things you've listed happened decades if not centuries ago. Capitalism was not to blame for woman's inability to vote or segregation. You'll find that no true libertarian is a sexist or racist.
Yerzriknot 3 years ago