 Socialism as a political philosophy comes in many varieties, some would say too damn many. There are anarchists, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Democratic-Socialists, Social Democrats, Left-Communists, Council-Communists, Libertarian-Communists, Mutualists, Syndicalists, and that's just sticking to the upper levels of the ideological iceberg. You might wonder how anyone can keep track of what they all mean. Well, perhaps this video can help. Each socialist political philosophy has different ideas about how to achieve the goal of creating a socialist society. In other words, many of the differences between these political philosophies are about strategy. What should be our strategy for how to get rid of capitalism and how to create socialism? Or, as many of them would prefer, how to create communism. Even though there are many nuances of difference between these strategies, they can be divided into just four or five categories. And likewise, the long list of socialist political philosophies can also be divided into just four or five categories. In this video, I'll explain each of these categories and map them into a nice, simple infographic. And then I'll take a more detailed look at each category and its unique strategy for achieving a socialist society. Along the way, I'll show lists of the names of the specific socialist political labels that fit into each category. As we go through this process, this ordeal of information, you will learn some of the basic key features of the oh so many types of socialists. And as a bonus, the infographic will make it easy for you to remember what you've learned, which is good news for those of you whose memory is as bad as mine. Okay, so first things first, let's create the infographic. This big square represents all socialists and also all communists. But I'm going to stick with the word socialist because socialist is an umbrella term that includes communist within it. If that's confusing, here's an analogy. The relationship between communists and socialists is like the relationship between chihuahuas and dogs. All chihuahuas are dogs, but not all dogs are chihuahuas. Other types of dogs include bulldogs, hound dogs, and corporate lap dogs, more commonly known as politicians. Likewise, all communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. And if you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the Encyclopedia Britannica, a publication so prestigious that it's impossible to say its name without sounding condescending. Communism is thus a form of socialism, a higher and more advanced form according to its advocates, says the Encyclopedia Britannica. Okay, so socialists are often divided into two types, state socialists and libertarian socialists. State socialists believe that the way to create socialism is by gaining control of the state and then using the state to create socialism. And libertarian socialists believe the state is the enemy of socialism and that socialism must be created using libertarian methods. If you're wondering what the heck this all means, it will soon be explained further, don't you worry. Socialists can be further divided between revolutionary socialists who believe that the only way to create socialism is by revolution and non-revolutionary socialists who believe we can create socialism by other methods. And again, this will all be explained later in the video. Okay, so now our infographic has four squares or quadrants. And when you look at that, it looks like the political compass, but in this one it's all socialists. Upper left quadrant is revolutionary state socialists. Bottom left quadrant is revolutionary libertarian socialists. Upper right quadrant is non-revolutionary state socialists. Bottom right quadrant is non-revolutionary libertarian socialists. So my dear viewer, those are the four quadrants of the socialist political compass and we can also label the axes of the compass. For the horizontal axis, on the left is revolutionary and on the right is non-revolutionary. For the vertical axis, we'll keep the same labels as the original political compass. Below is libertarian and above is authoritarian. Unfortunately, the word libertarian has been co-opted by people who have a great big old crush on capitalism but the original meaning of libertarian has nothing to do with that. Libertarian philosophy, to put it shortly and simply, is a philosophy that advocates liberty and freedom. And on the opposite end is authoritarian. And again, to put it shortly and simply, authoritarian philosophy says that society and its institutions should be controlled only by special people in positions of authority and obedience to authority should be strictly enforced. So this is the socialist political compass and all socialist and communist political philosophies fit somewhere within and can be mapped onto different locations on the compass. However, even though the socialist political compass has four quadrants, some types of revolutionary socialists are in this borderline zone between the top left and bottom left quadrants near the center of the authoritarian versus libertarian spectrum. And socialists in this borderline area are distinct from the socialists in the quadrants above and below them which means that explaining the socialist political compass requires that I explain five sections, not four and fuck me, I hate having more work to do but oh well, suck it up, lucky black cat. You got this, just drink another coffee whiskey. So in this video, fueled by the power of coffee and whiskey and the love of hearing my own voice, I'll explain all five sections of the socialist political compass but first, in order for those explanations to make any damn sense we need some foundational knowledge about three things. The state, hierarchy and revolution. So it's these concepts that we'll turn to next. Defining the state. So what is a state? People use the word state as a synonym for government but political scientists and social scientists who arguably don't count as people make a distinction between state and government because these asshole academics like to make things complicated. It's their kink. And actually, academics don't even agree with each other on how to define these terms because disagreement is also their kink. One way of making the distinction is that government refers to the people and organizations that govern society while the state refers to a government with coercive power plus all the institutions that give it coercive power. In other words, the state is what gives government the power to rule over a territory and rule over whoever lives in that territory. This is the core of the state. Institutions that give the power to rule. Institutions of violence and force, like the military, police, prisons but also other institutions for controlling society like legislative and executive bodies. This definition comes from sociologist Max Weber but since he's German, it's Max Weber. He wrote that the state has, quote, a monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Karl Marx had a similar definition but with an important addition. Marx said that the state is an organization that the ruling economic class uses to maintain its dominance. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. says Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto. Anarchists and other libertarian socialists agree with Marx on this but they add another feature to the definition of the state. The state is structured in a way that concentrates its power in the hands of a relatively small number of people. Not only is the state an organization with coercive power, the power of law and the power of armed men to enforce the law, this power is controlled by a government that is a tiny fraction of the population and if only a tiny fraction of people control the state it gives them power over everyone else. The state is what makes it possible for the few to rule over the many. Even if the government is democratically elected, the power of the state is still not truly in the hands of the people. The state looms above us beyond our reach, beyond our control and is instead capable of controlling us by violently forcing us to submit. This is why libertarian socialists reject the state. They see the state as a tool for tyranny but state socialists believe that the state is a necessary tool for creating socialism. Socialists have a lot of disagreements, a lot of drama but let's not get ahead of ourselves, that discussion will come later. Defining Hierarchy Hierarchy, hierarchical, hierarchical these are all sounds that are words that have meanings meanings I can explain with words that are sounds. A hierarchy means that people or things are ranked one above the other. This ranking can be based on anything. For example, you can rank cats according to their size or their age or their cuteness. Though that last one is impossible since all cats are equally cute. Even this one. Who's a cute little kitty? But when we're talking about politics, we're not talking about cuteness. We're talking about power and control. A political hierarchy is a hierarchy of power, which means those higher up in the hierarchy have power over those below. For example, the hierarchy of a king over his subjects and also a hierarchy of members of parliament or congress over ordinary citizens. And hierarchies of power and domination are also found outside of politics. Other examples include master and slave, feudal lord and serf, boss and worker, police officer and civilian or bully and kid who gets punked for their lunch money. Many people think that some of these hierarchies are justified. That lunch money isn't going to punk itself. But whether they're just or unjust, there's no denying that each of these is a hierarchy that gives those on top power over those below. And this connects back to our other topic, the state. Hierarchy and the state. States have always been extremely hierarchical. This was true over 5,000 years ago when the first states emerged in Mesopotamia and Egypt. And it remains true of states around the world today. The state centralizes power. It gives so much power to so few people and that power operates in a top-down chain of command. There is extreme inequality of power between the state and the people. The state rules and the people are ruled over. This is a dominance hierarchy. And dominance hierarchy is not only a key feature of the state, it's also a key purpose of the state. You know, it's kind of the point. The state is what enables the few to rule over the many. That's what it's designed for and that's what it does. Now, the weird thing is that despite the fact that all states are structured as a dominance hierarchy, the mainstream definition of the state doesn't include this as part of the definition and either does the Marxist definition of the state. However, when anarchists or libertarian socialists define the state, dominance hierarchy is an essential part of how they define it. This is why you sometimes see your Marxists and anarchists disagree on whether or not the anarchist regions that existed in Spain during the Spanish Civil War were stateless. Now, if you're not familiar with the Spanish Civil War of 1936 to 1939, also known as the Spanish Revolution, this debate won't make much sense to you. But basically, if you define the state as an organization to enforce class interests across society, you'll probably conclude that these regions had a state. But if you say that this definition is incomplete because one of the key things that defines the state is that it's a dominance hierarchy, then you'll probably conclude that these regions were in fact stateless. It's an interesting and important debate and one I'd like to explore in a future video. So if you like that kind of thing, consider subscribing and ringing the bell so you don't miss it. A couple points about revolution. I want you two to have sex with each other. Are you out of your fucking mind? In case you've forgotten, I'm your boyfriend. Don't be ridiculous. The revolution is my boyfriend. To your YouTube, I'm not advocating revolution. This is just for educational purposes. In any capitalist society, the state is always loyal to capitalism, so you can bet your ass and your assets that the state would use violence to try to stop a revolution. Therefore, a revolution can only succeed if it overthrows the state. And what exactly is involved in overthrowing the state? It involves disbanding and disarming the military and police, arresting the high-ranking officers, arresting leading members of the government. It also involves encouraging soldiers in the military community for soldiers to arrest and disarm their commanding officers so that the military crumbles from the inside. This is one thing that revolutionary state socialists and revolutionary libertarian socialists agree on. The existing state must be overthrown and dismantled. The difference is that revolutionary state socialists want to create a new state under their own control. This is where libertarian socialists disagree. They want no state whatsoever. Now, it should be mentioned that most state socialists want to eventually have a society with no state. But the emphasis is on eventually. They believe socialism will gradually evolve into communism and that the state will gradually wither away, even if that takes many generations. But libertarian socialists think the state can never just wither away on its own, because people with power tend not to give it up voluntarily. If you're like most people, the idea of a society without a state might sound absurd. After all, one of the functions of the state is to manage society and create social order. But it's possible to achieve the organized management of society without a state. The difference is that society would be managed without top-down domination, without the use of military or police, and without hoarding and monopolizing decision-making power into the hands of a few. And if you're wondering, well, how the hell does that work? I'll get into it later when we discuss libertarian socialists. One last point. A revolution can use various types of tactics, including nonviolent tactics, like labor strikes and civil disobedience. But the tragic truth is that it probably can't avoid armed conflict. However, the fight is supposed to be against armies, not civilians. And I say supposed to, because it hasn't always worked out that way. Okay, so I've defined the state. I've defined hierarchy. I've said a bit about revolution. I've made some bad jokes. And now, at long last, I understand able to have a proper and deeper explanation of each section of the socialist political compass. Each section of the compass represents a broad category of socialism, and within each broad category are several types of socialist political philosophies. Each socialist political philosophy is unique and nuanced and complex, a special snowflake just like you. But if you understand each broad category of socialism, although it won't tell you everything about the political philosophies within that category, it will give you a general understanding of them. This video focuses on those five broad categories. But along the way, you'll learn which specific political philosophies belong in which category, because I'll list the various names for various types of socialists in each category. However, when you look at these lists, it's important to remember two things. Number one, there are many cases where the same name or political label is used by people with extremely different political beliefs. For example, people who call themselves communists have political views that are radically different from other people who call themselves communists. And therefore, communists can be found in at least three of the five sections of the socialist political compass. The second point is that there is sometimes overlap between the various political labels that the various types of socialists use. For example, someone who identifies as an anarcho-syndicalist may also identify as an anarchist, as a communist, as an anarcho-communist, and as a libertarian communist, as if things weren't complicated enough. But let's not get bogged down in those details. Instead, let's get into the compass, starting with... Revolutionary Socialists, Borderline Zone. So, let's start by talking about socialists in this borderline zone right here, on the revolutionary side of the compass, on the border between authoritarian and libertarian. Here's the political compass ball we'll use to represent the socialists in this part of the compass. Say hello. Death to capitalism. Uh, that's not hello, but never mind. Death to capitalism is how I say hello. Okay then. The socialists in this area of the compass are very much inspired by the ideas of Karl Marx. Now, Marx has also inspired socialists in the top left of the compass at the authoritarian end. But the socialists on the border are much more democratic, and their radically democratic ideas can be traced back to Karl Marx. So let's learn about his ideas. Karl Marx was born in Germany in 1818, and lived until 1883. He was a surly man who liked to argue politics, and he wasn't nice about it. He would viciously attack whoever disagreed with him. Along with being surly and argumentative, he also liked to drink. So all in all, a pretty typical leftist. In Marx's view, the only way to end capitalism and create communism is to have a revolution. And what would this revolution require, according to Marx? For starters, he believed workers must take control of their workplaces, the factories, mines, offices, railroads, and so on. These things are called the means of production. In capitalism, the factories and other means of production are owned by the capitalist class, and in a revolution, they must be expropriated or taken away from the capitalist class so that they're no longer private property. They must belong to everyone. The reason to make them belong to everyone is because these are the things that produce wealth, and in communism, the wealth and that which produces it must belong to everyone. Speaking of capitalists, they're not going to take too kindly to losing their factories and warehouses and other means of production. They rely on those to make profit and to pay for their afternoon outings to space. Jeffrey, Jeffrey Bezos. And meanwhile, every capitalist country is ruled by a state that is loyal to capitalism, a state that, democratic or not, is ultimately controlled by the capitalist class. Therefore, the state will try to stop the revolution by violence and force through the mighty power of its police, prisons and military. So, how are workers to deal with this threat? Marx believed the working class would need to form a new state under their own control with their own militias and their own organizations for decision-making and coordination. The working class would then use their newly formed worker's state to tear down the old capitalist state. Now, I should explain what I mean when I say the working class would have its own militia. In the United States, if you hear about a militia, it's almost always an extremist right-wing militia. So, some people think militias are always right-wing. But that's not true. A militia is just an army of regular civilians rather than professional soldiers and officers. It can have any political ideology or even none at all. Marx used to think that in a revolution, when workers create their own state, that state should be highly centralized. But his views evolve and shift later in life, in part because he's influenced by one of the biggest, most significant events in socialist history, the Paris Commune. The Paris Commune was a revolutionary movement and a revolutionary government created by the citizens of Paris, France, way back in 1871. This revolutionary event has so much influence on Marx that it changes his views on some of the things he had written in his famous book, The Communist Manifesto. When Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto back in 1848, he was 30 years old. Fast-forward to 1871, Marx is verging on 53, the Paris Commune happens, and boom, it blows his damn mind. Then one year later in 1872, Marx, his mind still sizzling and smoking from being blown, publishes a new edition of The Communist Manifesto, and he adds a preface where he warns the readers that some of the stuff he wrote in The Manifesto 24 years ago is stuff that he no longer agrees with, and I'll quote it so you can hear it for yourself. No special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of section 2. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the Paris Commune, this program has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Paris Commune, these, that the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes. In other words, although Marx still believed a revolution will need something which in his view is a state, he believed it must be something radically different, something like what was created in the Paris Commune. Marx saw the Paris Commune as an inspirational example of a revolutionary worker's state, and he wrote glowingly about it in his book The Civil War in France, and open wide because here's a little taste of what he said. The first decree of the Commune was the suppression of the standing army and the substitution for it of the armed people. The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors chosen by universal suffrage of the various wards of the town responsible and revocable at short terms. Instead of continuing to be the agent of the central government, the police was at once stripped of its political attribute and turned into the responsible and old times revocable agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downward, the public service had to be done at workman's wage. In other words, the state military was replaced by a people's militia, which by the way allowed soldiers to elect their officers. This democratic militia was paired with a democratically elected government with the people of each neighbourhood electing someone who lives in that neighbourhood to be their delegate. These delegates became the official government of the Paris Commune and if the people of a neighbourhood were unhappy with their delegate, they could at any time vote to recall them and choose a new delegate. Also, government officials were only paid a small salary equal to a typical working class salary, which helps to drive away any self-serving people. People only interested in money or ego. Basically, to drive away people like me. Marx also wrote what it could be like if the Paris Commune were scaled up to the national level. In his words, All France organised into self-working and self-governing communes, the standing army replaced by popular militias and the army of the state parasites removed. In a rough sketch of national organisation, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs, money, assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the national delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandate in baritif, formal instructions, of his constituents. The few but important functions which were still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, but were to be discharged by communal and therefore responsible agents. The constitution of the Commune would have restored to the community all the powers which until now the parasitic growth, the state which lives on the community and hinders its reaction, has absorbed. Damn, Marx is calling the state a parasitic growth? That's intense. And Marx's support for local self-government can also be found in some notes that he wrote on a book by the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin. In his book, Bakunin had posed this question. The Germans number around 40 million. Will, for example, all 40 million be members of the government? In response, Marx wrote, Certainly, since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the Commune. So that describes Marx's vision of a revolutionary state. It's more radically democratic and decentralized than the state of any country on Earth. Yet, and here's where things get awkward, he gave this revolutionary period a very confusing and very badly chosen name, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Weird name coming from a guy who wants democracy. So, why did he call it this? Unfortunately, nobody ever went to Marx and was like, Hey, Marx, why the fuck did you call it dictatorship of the proletariat? Like, what does that even mean, bro? And I can't ask him that now, because Marx refuses to answer my Ouija board texts. His ghost is straight up ghosting me. That punk-ass little bitch. But that's okay, we can figure it out based on the stuff he wrote when he was alive. First of all, proletariat is another word for working class, and dictatorship in the way Marx uses the term means to control the state. So, dictatorship of the proletariat means that the working class controls the state. Marx believed that even if a state has a democratically elected government, it's still a dictatorship. Because in his view, every state is a dictatorship by a particular economic class. In Marx's opinion, a democratic government that exists in a capitalist society is not a true democracy. It's a dictatorship by the capitalist class. Even though workers are allowed to vote, the state is still controlled by capitalists. So, Marx said that in a socialist revolution, the script is flipped. Instead of capitalists controlling the state, it's now workers who control the state. Instead of a dictatorship of the capitalists, it's a dictatorship of the proletariat. Now, does this mean that Marx believed that anyone who's not working class would be straight up excluded from participating in this working class democracy? I used to think so, but then I found out that this exclusion did not take place in the Paris commune. You know, the Paris commune that Marx saw as a glorious example of a revolutionary worker's state? Although most of the 92 delegates elected to the commune government were workers, there were also five small business owners. And also, there was no class restrictions on who was allowed to vote. Yet, Marx still called it a dictatorship of the proletariat. What's up with that? I guess he just thought close enough. In any case, the point is that Marx was in favor of a democratic worker's state, a democracy of the working class, by the working class, and for the working class. And just to be clear, Marx's definition of working class is different from the common definition of working class. It's not just factory workers or blue-collar workers or low-wage workers. It includes anyone who must work and the rate of that wage is relatively high. It also includes the financially dependent members of their household and workers who are unemployed or retired. In our time, the 21st century, the majority of humanity fits into this definition of working class. So during a revolution, power would extend to the majority. Oh, Marx, you fool. You utter fool. You could have called it democracy of the proletariat, not dictatorship of the proletariat, but you just had to be an edgelord, didn't you? Many Marxists use the term dictatorship of the proletariat to mean something different than what I've just described. In their view, the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a working class democracy. It's a dictatorship by a political party of professional revolutionaries. These are the beliefs of the Marxists in the top left of the compass at the authoritarian end. But these beliefs are very fatically rejected by Marxists in this border zone, which is why they're sometimes called libertarian Marxists. Aw, isn't the libertarian Marxist ball so cute? But they look a little angry. Of course I look angry. Marx has been appropriated for authoritarian purposes. We should all be angry. Marx was very clear that the workers state or dictatorship of the proletariat, or whatever you want to call it, that this is just temporary. As long as it takes to tear down the old capitalist state, turn the means of production into public property and make class differences disappear. So although the working class takes power, the goal is to pave the way to a future where no class has more power than any other because class no longer exists. And as class disappears, Marx said the state would also disappear, thus creating a stateless and communist society. At the start of this chapter of the video, I said that the socialists in this borderline area of the compass have a democratic concept of revolution inspired by Karl Marx. And although that's true, they also draw their ideas from events that took place after Marx was no longer alive. For example, many of these socialists say that a revolutionary movement should be organized into a political structure of councils. And before I explain what this means, I should say that this idea of councils didn't come from some theory that socialists came up with in their heads. It's based on real-life examples from history. In various countries during times of revolution or intense class struggle, workers and soldiers and peasants have created councils, and they've used these councils to organize and self-govern their movements for social change. Here's how these councils were created. The workers in each workplace would get together in an assembly meeting and choose a fellow co-worker to be their delegate on the local workers' council for that city. This council would then consist of delegates from workplaces all across the city. The same thing was done by assemblies of soldiers in their military regiments and assemblies of peasants in their villages who also chose delegates to be on their local council. These councils then became governing bodies for the revolutionary movement and in some cases the councils even had their own militias. In other words, they've been a force with the potential to overthrow the capitalist state. The first workers' councils were created in Russia in 1905, but there are many other examples where councils were created, such as Germany in 1918 and 19, Ukraine in 1918 to 21, Hungary in 1956, Chile in 1972 and 3, Portugal in 1974 and 5, Iran in 1979, Poland in 1980 and 1981, Argentina in 2001 to 2003 and most famously in the Russian Revolution of 1917. However, in Russia after the Communist Party took power these councils soon became controlled and dominated by the Communist Party. Revolutionary socialists in this borderline zone of the compass are totally opposed to the Communist Party or any political party taking control of the councils. They hate that shit. They say that workers' councils must be controlled by the working class directly not by some party. Now, here's an interesting and somewhat confusing thing about revolutionary socialists in the borderline zone. Although these socialists all have very similar ideas about the political structures that should exist during a revolution basically a working class democracy not all of them agree that this political structure should be called a state. Many of them do call it a state, but some of them reject this term. They will tell you we want a revolution without a state. For example, on YouTube there's a lecture on the Russian Revolution by Jacques Domini, a member of the Communist Workers' Organization which is an organization of left communists and left communists by the way are a type of Marxist. At about one hour, 42 minutes and 45 seconds into the video the person giving the lecture says that a workers' state is an oxymoron which is something you almost never hear from a Marxist. You could even argue that socialists in this borderline zone should be classified as revolutionary libertarian socialists which are the socialists in the bottom left quadrant. However, there are genuine differences that set them apart. The main difference between libertarian socialists and the socialists in the borderline zone is in their degree of tolerance for hierarchies of power. Political and social structures where decision-making power is centralized or concentrated in the hands of the minority of people at the top of the hierarchy. And this really is the key difference between socialists across the spectrum from libertarian socialists at the bottom of the compass to the authoritarian or state socialists at the upper end of the compass. Socialists in the borderline zone are not as critical of hierarchy as libertarian socialists but they are way more critical of hierarchy than state socialists. Their attitudes about hierarchy are somewhere in between libertarian and state socialists which I guess is an obvious point I mean it's why they're in the borderline zone. They're not just there for the weather. Things can get confusing though because all three types of revolutionary socialists tend to agree that workers' councils are a good political structure for revolution. Though there are revolutionary socialists who disagree with that but since they're only a small minority we'll just ignore them. Sorry guys. It's confusing because if all three types of revolutionary socialists say they like workers' councils you might wonder how it is that these socialists are different from each other. But their differences become very clear when you hear their different ideas about how these councils should be structured and the power relations within them. Revolutionary state socialists, so socialists in the upper left quadrant think these councils should be controlled by the Communist Party. That the party or the central committee of the party should be the entity that holds all the power and the council should be organizations under the party's control. But socialists in the bottom left quadrant and socialists in the borderline zone are both totally against this. They're like hell no bitch. If a party takes control of the councils then the revolution is as good as dead. The purpose of councils is to put power in the hands of the workers and everyone in the revolutionary movement. That all gets destroyed if councils become puppets of the party. So on this issue, socialists in the borderline zone and socialists in the bottom left quadrant are in full agreement. Another thing they agree on is that the delegates on councils should be subject to instant recall. If people think their delegate is doing a bad job, they should be able to tell them to fuck off and replace them with someone else. Though hopefully they'd say it in a nicer way than that. So when it comes to their views on councils, these are the things that socialists in the borderline zone and in the bottom left have in common. But what are their differences? Mainly it's that libertarian socialists tend to be more critical of the hierarchies that have existed in councils. And the way these hierarchies caused the broader working class to become alienated and excluded from decision making power. During historical events where workers and soldiers and peasants have created councils these councils have in at least some very significant cases become bureaucratic and dominated by a relatively small central committee that makes decisions without really bothering to consult the wider body of delegates, let alone the general assemblies of workers and peasants and soldiers. This happened for example in the Petrograd Soviet during the Russian Revolution. And it happened even before the Communist Party took power. Libertarian socialists think that shit is whack as fuck. If you look at what they've written or said about historical examples of councils, you'll find they have a lot of good things to say, but they also have strong criticism of the hierarchy. These are cases where power became concentrated in a central committee or the cases where delegates behaved as though they were politicians in a representative democracy making decisions without bothering to consult with the people who chose them as their delegate. But when it comes to socialists in the borderline zone they don't often make these criticisms and when they do their criticism doesn't go as far as the criticism made by Libertarian socialists. A related point is that Libertarian socialists tend to put a lot of importance on general assemblies. General assemblies are meetings where everyone in a workplace or village or neighborhood or whatever it may be can come together to make decisions by direct democracy. It's in these assemblies that people can directly take part in decision making. Now the socialists in the borderline zone aren't against assemblies, quite the opposite, they're all for them. And in fact assemblies go hand in hand with the councils. Councils have their roots in the assemblies. It's in these assemblies that people choose the delegates who will serve on their local council. But socialists in the borderline zone usually don't seem too interested in assemblies as being much more than a place for workers to choose their delegates. But for Libertarian socialists the assembly is equally as important as the council because these assemblies provide a forum through which every individual can directly take part in the revolution and play a direct role in decision making so that power can stay firmly in the hands of the masses of people at the bottom rather than be concentrated among a relatively small number of people at the top. And again it's not that socialists in the borderline zone are opposed to any of this. If you ask them their opinion they'd probably be like sure that all sounds great. However they tend not to give much attention to direct democracy at the grassroots level. They don't seem very concerned when it's not present and they just generally place less importance on it. Before we move on to the next chapter of the video there's one last point I want to make. A point I say for last because it's just that important. If a socialist says a revolution needs a state chances are that their idea of a state is very different from what Carla Marx had in mind. Yes there are some socialists who think the state should be radically democratic and with less hierarchy than what is normally found in a state and that's the type of socialist I've been describing in the bottom line section of the compass. But this type of socialist is quite rare. There's not that many of them. Most of the socialists who talk about needing a state are talking about a political structure that is extremely hierarchical and it's these socialists who we're going to talk about next. Revolutionary state socialists Okay so now we're on the top left of the socialist political compass. The socialists in part of the compass are revolutionary state socialists represented by this little guy right here. Say hello. Don't dare call me thank you I'll give you a spanky. Okay. They believe that socialism can only be created by revolution by forcefully overthrowing the capitalist state and that to achieve this they must create a new state under their own control. This new state would be as states have always tended to be structured as a strict power hierarchy and with all the accoutrements of a modern state apparatus a military, a secret police all the usual shit. They also believe that this state must be ruled by a special type of political party known as a vanguard party and this party must have total control of the state. It must be a one party dictatorship. So what is a vanguard party? Well the word vanguard comes from the French word avant-garde and the original meaning refers to the unit of soldiers at the very front of an army also known as the soldiers who will die first. But over time the meaning of vanguard evolved to mean people at the front or forefront of anything who are more advanced or further ahead than everyone else. So a vanguard party is a political party which claims that its members are more advanced and further ahead than everyone else in their knowledge of revolutionary political theory. Wow that's a big claim whether or not a vanguard party always lives up to this claim or has ever lived up to this claim is up for debate. But in any case a vanguard party is supposed to be a party of professional revolutionaries with advanced knowledge of the theory of their particular political ideology. In history the first political party to ever identify itself as a vanguard party is the Bolshevik party in Russia which later renamed itself the Communist Party. This is the party that took power in Russia during the Russian revolution of October 1917. Its leader was Vladimir Lenin and in Lenin's words the vanguard party is a party that is guided by the most advanced theory. This point was echoed by Joseph Stalin who became ruler of the Soviet Union after Lenin died. Stalin said the party must be armed with revolutionary theory with a knowledge of the laws of the movement with a knowledge of the laws of revolution. Socialists who support a vanguard party are sometimes called vanguardists. They believe the role of a vanguard party is to politically educate the working class and perhaps also the peasants and to lead them in a movement for social revolution overthrowing the state of the capitalist class and creating a new state. But that's not all. Vanguardists believe that once the old state is overthrown and a new state created the vanguard party must fully control the state fully control government and not share that control with any other party. You might hear vanguardists say they're in favor of democracy because they're willing to allow elections. However, the vanguard party must control these elections so that there's no significant sharing of power with other parties. In other words elections are fine so long as those elections result in a one party dictatorship. Vladimir Lenin was the OV gangster, original vanguardist. It was Lenin who made the Soviet Union into a one party dictatorship of the communist party and he was not shy about voicing his support for this as demonstrated by this quote from one of his speeches. Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party. That is what we stand for and we shall not shift from this position says Lenin in July 1919. Lenin only began advocating a party dictatorship after his party had taken power but years before that when Lenin wrote or spoke about the role of the vanguard party his vision was of a party that would educate, lead, inspire and guide the masses towards revolution to instill socialist consciousness into the working class movement. As Lenin said, our task is not to champion the degrading of the revolutionary to the level of amateur but to raise the amateurs to the level of revolutionaries. This was important because to quote him once again without revolutionary theory there wouldn't be no revolutionary movement. Now, here's the thing. If you exclude socialists way up in the top left of the compass, socialists everywhere else on the compass do not support a vanguard party dictatorship. Just the opposite, they are very much opposed to it. However, most of them are not opposed to socialists joining together in a party or some other type of organization and working together to spread socialist theory and praxis. For example, back in 1927, anarchists in Spain created an organization called the FAI. Through the FAI anarchists worked to spread libertarian socialist ideas, encourage class struggle and encourage revolutionary action. The results of their efforts can be seen in the Spanish Revolution of 1936. Unfortunately, this revolution was crushed by military force but it made a good start towards creating a socialist society. But that's a story for another video. Anyways, the point is that what Lenin said about having an organization to advance the socialist cause, this is something that most socialists have no objection to. As far as they're concerned, this type of vanguard, a vanguard that educates, inspires and guides the people towards creating socialism, that's all fine and good. So fine and good that there have even been some anarchists who embrace the term vanguard. But what's not fine and good, in their opinion, is for this vanguard to take state power and rule as a dictatorship. But vanguardists disagree. They believe the role of the vanguard needs to go beyond mere education and leadership. In their view, the vanguard party must rule as a dictatorship because they believe that the vanguard party and only the vanguard party has the advanced political analysis to successfully create socialism and can only put its theory into practice if it has all the power to itself. Revolution, as the saying goes, ain't no picnic unless your idea of a picnic is dining on stale bread while dodging bullets. Revolutions tend to take place during dire, desperate, difficult circumstances and the backlash against revolution can then make those circumstances even worse. The Russian Revolution, for example, provoked civil war with armies that wanted to restore capitalism and the monarchy. Food scarcity and economic crisis were problems before the revolution and those problems continued. And on top of all this, the revolution failed to spread beyond Russia and Russia itself had an underdeveloped economy with hardly any industry. Vanguardists believe that in circumstances like these only a party of politically educated revolutionaries can be trusted to safeguard the revolution and therefore must not share power with any other party. Other socialists disagree. What are you talking about, they say? Party dictatorship can't safeguard a revolution. It's the opposite. Dictatorship strangles the life from revolution and ensures it will be dead on arrival. Revolution must liberate the working people of the world and put power in their hands. But dictatorship does the opposite. It subjugates them under the boot of the party. This isn't just theory or speculation. It's history. It's what happens time and time again. Vanguardists find these criticisms unconvincing. They believe a vanguard party is necessary for all the reasons we've already discussed. I'll leave it up to you to make your own judgment on who's right. By the way, remember earlier when we discussed the dictatorship of the proletariat? Vanguardists use the term dictatorship of the proletariat as a synonym for dictatorship of the vanguard party. In their mind, these are the same thing. Why? Well, they think that the vanguard party represents the true interests of the proletariat. Or they think the dictatorship of the proletariat is achieved through a dictatorship of the vanguard party, taking power in the name of the workers and on their behalf. But other socialists disagree. Socialists on the border between the top left and bottom left quadrant, they define dictatorship of the proletariat as a working class democracy. They argue that a dictatorship by the vanguard party is not a dictatorship of the proletariat. It's a dictatorship over the proletariat. The party is the ruler and the proletariat is ruled over. And they say a party dictatorship is not at all what Karl Marx had in mind. After all, as Marx famously said, the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. Buoyakasha. Another thing that vanguardists believe is that it's okay for the vanguard party to put major restrictions on civil liberties. Things like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial, the right to independent labor unions, and so on. Now, of course, civil liberties are also repressed in countries all around the world. That being said, countries with a one party dictatorship tend to be a lot more brutal and repressive than the norm. Vanguardists say these restrictions on liberty are all done in the service of protecting socialism, that they're necessary to stop those who want to see socialism destroyed. But libertarian socialists say it's the opposite. These restrictions on liberty have been used to subjugate and exploit workers and peasants, and that comrade is the opposite of socialism. Vanguardists, of course, dispute all this, and they insist that all of this repression and violence by the state has been in the service of a just cause. But other socialists are not at all convinced. And furthermore, they say, there have been many times when these restrictions on liberty have escalated into very extreme violations and assaults on human rights. Like take the Soviet Union, for example. When Stalin was in power, he oversaw something called the Great Purge, where anyone who he suspected might be a threat to whose power was targeted. As a result, an estimated 700,000 people were sentenced to death. And this number of 700,000 put to death isn't CIA propaganda. It comes from the Soviet Union's own archival records. Not everyone was sentenced to death, though. Others were sent to prisons, known as gulags, where the prisoners had to do forced labor. And human rights organizations consider forced prison labor to be a form of slavery. And for many of these prisoners, being sentenced to the gulag was itself a death sentence. Because conditions were so bad, that death was not uncommon. If you combine deaths by execution with deaths caused by the gulags, the number killed in the Great Purge is estimated at about 1 million. Not all vanguardists think the Great Purge was a good thing. Some of them condemn it. But many of them defend it, and they do so based on the belief that those who were executed were victims of socialism. And therefore, this was all done in defense of socialism. But other socialists think this is nonsense. They say, first of all, the victims of the Great Purge were, in the vast majority of cases, not a threat to socialism. And second of all, it's ridiculous to say that this violence was in defense of socialism, because the Soviet Union was not socialist and never at any point became socialist. And in fact, the Soviet Party on Earth has ever created socialism in any country, and they certainly never created communism. They instead created systems of exploitation and oppression. Vanguardists, of course, disagree with all this. They say, these systems were not oppressive or exploitative, and the Soviet Union most definitely was socialist. Now, this debate about whether the Soviet Union was or wasn't socialist is not a topic we have time for in this video, but if you're interested, it's a topic I cover in one of my recent videos called Eight Types of Socialism in 75 Minutes. The link is in the top right corner of the screen or the video description. When we talk about a dictatorship of one party, it's important to keep in mind that what this really means is a dictatorship by the top-level leaders of that party. These are the few individuals who really have the power and are the ones who are really running the show. Most members of the party don't have control over the party or its policies. But the dictatorship of the vanguard party isn't supposed to last forever, and neither is the state. The theory is that the vanguard party will oversee the transition of society from capitalism to socialism to communism, and that as the societal evolution occurs, the vanguard party will give up its power, the state will gradually wither away, and a society of freedom will emerge. But libertarian socialists aren't buying it. They say if you look at the Soviet Union, the state didn't wither away, just the opposite. The state became even more hierarchical, even more bureaucratic, even more centralized in its power, moving from a party dictatorship to the one-man dictatorship of Joseph Stalin. And what about China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and North Korea? Are the states in these countries going to wither away anytime soon? Revolutionary state socialists reply to this saying, well, of course these states haven't withered away. This can only happen once a country achieves communism, and that's a long way off. Revolution must first spread internationally, especially to those motherfucking western and purist countries. But to that, libertarian socialists say so long as there's a party dictatorship or state of any kind, communism will never be achieved because the leaders of the ruling party are in positions of power and privilege. They become a ruling elite, and a ruling elite doesn't give up its power and privilege voluntarily. Just the opposite. They fight ruthlessly and brutally to hold on to power. That's just the facts of history. But revolutionary state socialists don't think this will be the case. They have faith that the leaders of the Communist parties and other vanguard parties can be trusted, and that they'll voluntarily give up their privilege and power when the time comes. It's important to know that vanguardism had an enormous influence on revolutionary socialists of the 20th century. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, all heavily influenced by vanguardism. This is why all these countries created a one-party dictatorship. Some people think it's because attempts to create communism or socialism inevitably lead to dictatorship. But that's not true. The real reason is because in all these socialist movements were heavily influenced by the political philosophy of vanguardism. They believed socialism could only succeed if their party had full control. However, this belief is only held by socialists in the top left of the socialist political compass. All other socialists reject this view. Okay, so there you have it. That is the top left of the socialist political compass. And now, let's move on to another quadrant. Revolutionary Libertarian Socialists. Revolutionary Libertarian Socialists. The bottom left quadrant is the quadrant of revolutionary libertarian socialists, represented by this wee little comrade. Say hello. Don't call me Anarkitty, but you can call me Anarkitty, because that's adorable. Uh-huh. Calling yourself a cat? So fucking weird. Anyways, they believe socialism must be created by revolution. One of the biggest goals in this revolution is for the factories, the farms, the power plants, and all the means of production throughout the economy to no longer be private property used for private profit. Instead, the economy must belong to all humanity and be used to benefit all humanity. This goal can be achieved by workers. And to do so, they must organize themselves so they can act as a cohesive, coordinated force to take control of the factories and other workplaces. As part of the revolution, people can also organize with their neighbors to self-manage the needs of their local community. And of course, libertarian socialists also believe that revolution must abolish the state. Just sweep that fucker into the trash can of history. Many libertarian socialists think that workers and other people involved in a revolution should organize democratic councils. Others think that syndicalist labor unions will be a vehicle for revolutionary action. And some libertarian socialists reject both these things in favor of small affinity groups. These are some differences between revolutionary libertarian socialists, but let's focus on similarities. Libertarian socialists are suspicious of all hierarchies. And when it comes to hierarchies of domination, they are completely opposed. They create systems or structures that give some people power over others. Having power over others is what makes it possible to oppress people in ways big and small, from the worst human rights atrocities in history to just generally constricting and controlling people's lives. This is one of the reasons why libertarian socialists are against the state, because it gives a tiny fraction of the population the power to rule over everyone else. Libertarian socialists are even opposed to states with new governments, because democratically elected rulers are still rulers. The state is also what enables the capitalist class, which is just a minority of the population, to dominate the majority. Democratic or not, the state is a tool for the few to dominate the many. And so libertarian socialists reject the state completely. Like I said, trash can of history. This puts libertarian socialists at odds with state socialists. State socialists say the state is an essential tool for winning revolution, but libertarian socialists say the state is a tool for destroying revolution. If we try to use the state to create socialism, we will instead create a new form of tyranny. They say this is proven by revolutions in the Soviet Union, China, and so on. These revolutions created a state, and according to libertarian socialists, creating a state caused these revolutions to result in authoritarian totalitarian regimes. And by the way, if you want a well researched and in-depth exploration of this topic, check out the video series The State is Counter-Revolutionary by the YouTuber, Anarch. As far back as the late 1860s, libertarian socialists were already proclaiming their distrust of state socialism. This mistrust is well exemplified in this quote from 1872 by an anarchist named Mikhail Bakunin, who was an outspoken critic of Karl Marx. On the topic of state socialism, Bakunin said, Interesting power to a group of men elected to represent and govern them real unfailingly, returns them to all the deceits and subservience of representative or bourgeois role. After a brief flash of liberty or orgiastic revolution, the city scenes of the new state will wake up slaves, puppets and victims of a new group of ambitious men. Bakunin believed that if Marx's vision for a socialist state became a reality, it would be quote, the most aristocratic, the most despotic, the most arrogant and the most contemptuous of all regimes. Damn. That is a harsh diss. Now, libertarian socialists definitely agree that Bakunin's criticisms describe the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China and other regimes created by revolutionary state socialists. But Karl Marx, after being inspired by the Paris Commune, he had a concept of a revolutionary state that's very different from what existed in the Soviet Union or any place like it. When it comes to the state that Marx had in mind, not all libertarian socialists are as critical of it as Bakunin. They don't think it's ideal, but some of them think, well, it's a democracy with recallable, perhaps even mandated, delegates. It's relatively decentralized, it abolishes the military and replaces it with popular militias. You know, it's not perfect, but it's good enough. But others don't think it's good enough. One of them is an anarchist author named Wayne Price. Here's what he says for Marx's ideas for a worker state in the image of the Paris Commune. These ideas are good, but at most they point to a better, more democratic but still centralized representative democracy. It is as if the local people had nothing to do but to elect or recall their representatives, who would be political for them. The proposals do not deal with the need for local face-to-face, directly democratic councils in neighborhoods or workplaces. If the people were not to be passive spectators at their own revolution, if they were to manage their own lives, they had to set up such self-governing councils. In fact, such neighborhood assemblies were created during the Paris Commune. They included almost daily meetings to make decisions, to organize the community and to organize the fight against the counter-revolution. But there is nothing of this in Marx's writing. For libertarian socialists, a political system has to do better than just having democratically elected and recallable delegates. There must also be directly democratic assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods, so that people in general and not just their elected officials can be directly involved in the revolution and have direct control in determining their own fate and choosing their own destiny. What would this look like in practice? Each workplace and industry would be self-managed by the workers and each community and society in general would be self-governed by the people. And this isn't just theoretical, isn't just a nice fantasy living in the minds of anarchists. Although it's never been completely implemented to its full extent, there are several real-life examples where it's been put into practice to a significant degree. The Zapatista territory in Mexico, the communities of the landless workers movement in Brazil, and of course the free territories in the Spanish Revolution, to name a few examples. So, what would a political system be like in a stateless society? It can take many different forms, and I'm sure that different places in the world will have their own way of doing things. But the goes a little something like this. Each local community is self-governing. In every neighborhood and every village, people gather into an assembly which is just a big meeting, and they make decisions for their community by direct democracy. This enables everyone who lives in the community to have equal say. Now, if you hear this and think, oh, I don't want to go to meetings, that's fine, nobody would force you, but you have the freedom to attend if you want. It's up to you. Speaking of freedom, in the philosophy of Libertarian Socialism and Anarchism, the community generally tries to avoid placing restrictions on the individual. Most restrictions on individual freedom are seen as illegitimate and unacceptable. Most, but not all. For example, you can't just run around on a killing spree because you decided that's a fun way to spend a Tuesday night. Individuals should not have the freedom to violate the freedom of others, including the freedom to be free from violence and harm. So it's seen as legitimate and important to restrict behaviors that cause harm to others. It's a good principle to have, but what behaviors are harmful enough to justify restriction? That's debatable, so it gets complicated. It's a question that the people of future Libertarian Socialist societies will have to decide for themselves, unless they want to install me as their dictator, but I think that kind of contradicts the whole Libertarian Socialist philosophy, so never mind. So, we've explained self-governance for the local communities, but what about dealing with stuff that's not local? For example, let's say several towns and cities all use the same river for their fresh water. Since they share the same water supply, they need to reach an agreement on how to manage it, to make sure it doesn't get polluted and that the amount of water they use is sustainable. Otherwise, the river will dry up and then they'll all be screwed. It's not like millions of people can all attend the same meeting, so how can decisions be made beyond the local level? Libertarian Socialists have various opinions on how to answer this question, and they have some pretty big disagreements, but one of the things they agree on is that there should not be one single political blueprint that everyone must follow. No, the people of different communities and regions can decide their own way to do things, but the basic idea goes a little something like this. Each community assembly chooses someone from the assembly, or perhaps a few someones, to serve as their delegate or delegates. All the delegates from all the assemblies in the same town or city or municipal area would come together, thus forming a municipal council of delegates. And in most cases a council would probably have a lot more delegates than you see in this image. There that's probably more accurate. This council would have regular meetings and its goal, its reason for existence, is to help all the community assemblies of the city to make decisions on issues of mutual concern. For example, deciding whether or not to shut down a nuclear power plant and switch to a safer form of energy. One of the things that makes this council different from a state is that it doesn't have final say over decisions. Instead the delegates on the council act as facilitators, mediators and negotiators to help multiple self-governing communities reach their decision together. That way it is the self-governing communities that have the power and not the council above them. And there are other measures to keep power in the hands of the people. Delegates are mandated and they meet regularly with their community assembly. The assembly tells their delegate what to do and the delegate is obliged to follow their instructions. Delegates are also rotated and are subject to recall. If an assembly is unhappy with their delegate, the assembly can at any time replace that delegate with someone new. So that explains how decisions can be made at the municipal level. And if there are decisions that need to be made beyond that scale, each municipal council can send a delegate to form a regional council. And those delegates will also be mandated, rotated and recallable. And this pattern of councils with mandated, rotated and recallable delegates can scale up to the national and even international level. The result is a political structure of federations. Local communities join together into a federation of all the communities in a city or town. Thus creating a federation at the municipal level. And then, cities or towns that are in the same region, they join into a federation at the regional level and so on. Also, and this is crucial, each unit in a federation has autonomy. Each country, each region, each city, each community has autonomy. There's no central power to dominate them. All of this exists in parallel to and in partnership with workers councils and industrial federations. Workers use these organizations to self-manage the economy. Healthcare workers self-manage the healthcare industry, energy workers self-manage the energy industry, and so it goes for every industry. Agriculture, manufacturing, sewage treatment, recycling, postal service, you name it. There can also be councils for workers with particular types of expertise, like scientists, climate scientists, urban planners, public health experts and so on. So, that's a rough sketch of a libertarian socialist society. And there's one more point to make about how the delegate councils are different from a state. Unlike a state, these councils have no monopoly on force or violence. They have no command of a military or police force. State socialists tend not to like this. Without a military, how can we overthrow the state of the capitalist class? And also, what if those who want to restore capitalism form an army and attack? Surely we need a military of our own to defend ourselves. Libertarian socialists say no. Instead of a military, people can create militias that are voluntary and democratic. Voluntary in that nobody's forced to join, people just sign up voluntarily. And democratic in that militia members elect their own officers. These militias would not be a standing army. They'd only mobilize in emergencies like a civil war. State socialists don't think this is a good idea. They say without a state to command the militias, won't these militias be poorly organized and less effective? Libertarian socialists say no, because militias can be well organized without a state. All you really need is a committee that coordinates the militias, thus making it possible for militias to work together under a unified strategy. Kind of like these synchronized swimmers, except with guns. And of course the members of this committee can be rotated and subject to recall so that their power is held in check. In response to this, state socialists say, don't kid yourself, this is just a state by another name. But libertarian socialists say, we're not kidding anyone. This isn't a state because coordination is not the same as command. A state military is based on a chain of command. Officers must obey a central authority. Soldiers must obey officers and anyone who disobeys is punished. But what libertarian socialists propose is very different. Militia units join together and are overseen by a committee. The committee gives instructions to the militias and the militias obey. But obedience is voluntary. It's voluntary because if militia members ever decide that their orders should be disobeyed, they can simply leave the militia. This is not something that soldiers in a military can do. They can't just leave if they think their orders are too horrible to obey. But things are different in a militia with voluntary membership. Militia members are free to leave their militia at any time and there's no punishment for leaving. So if soldiers really hate their orders, they can leave rather than obey. To quote the theme song, with no threat of punishment, the committee has no power to force obedience and thus no power of command. State socialists think this is a ridiculous idea, a recipe for disorder and disaster. But libertarian socialists say the point is to prevent disaster because if rulers have command of a military, the military becomes a tool in their hands, a tool that they can use to terrorize and kill civilians, and worst of all to kill the revolution. But this can be prevented, say libertarian socialists if we get rid of the hierarchy of command and punishment. But state socialists think this hierarchy of command is a necessary evil. After all wouldn't the militias become dysfunctional if soldiers could disobey without punishment? Libertarian socialists say this would not be an issue. Soldiers will voluntarily follow orders, not due to fear, but due to their passionate desire for a victorious revolution and the dawn of a socialist society. Their discipline will come from within. And they say this isn't speculation or wishful thinking, because there have been militias that were just like this. This is how things were in the militias that anarchists formed when they fought against fascists in the Spanish Civil War. Now, admittedly, not all anarchist militias have totally lived up to these anarchist ideals. In Ukraine in 1918 to 1921, there was an anarchist militia called the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine, which took part in the Russian Civil War. This militia fought to create a libertarian socialist society, and although the militia began as voluntary, it eventually began conscripting people. Now, to be fair, the decision to start conscripting people was something that the Ukrainian peasants and working class voted for in their councils. It was a democratic decision. But still, if you're the person being forced to fight in a militia when you don't want to, you're probably not going to get much comfort from knowing this was a democratic decision of your community. And that's why most libertarian socialists think that joining a militia should be an entirely voluntary and individual choice. State socialists think that libertarian socialists take this whole liberty thing way too far. Save it for later, they say. In communism, we can loosen up and allow freedom, but if it's too soon the revolution might fail from lack of control. Libertarian socialists reply by saying, freedom is the only path to communism. If you create a power structure that is separate from and above us, that power structure will be used to oppress and exploit us and thus become an obstacle to communism, not the path to it. History has shown this to be true time and time again. So, that's a brief summary of the debate. Which side is right? You be the judge. Non-revolutionary state socialists. Okay, so now we have moved to the right side of the socialist political compass, the side of non-revolutionary socialists. And if you have any deductive reasoning skills whatsoever, you'll be able to tell by the name that these socialists think revolution is a bad idea. Sometimes their objections are ethical or moral. They think that even if revolution tries to keep violence to a minimum, violence can't be avoided and that makes revolution immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong. Others have objections of a different nature. They think that even if violence of revolution may be justified, after all, the goal is to prevent the even greater violence of capitalism, a system which perpetuates monstrous levels of violence on a daily basis. But even if revolution is justified, it might cause more harm than good. After all, it's possible that a revolution could degenerate into a civil war that drags on for years, even decades, and in the end, still fail. Rather than ushering in a new utopia, we'd usher in a new era of violence and hardship. That is a tough criticism for revolutionary socialists to respond to. In fact, revolutionary socialists agree that all of this is a risk, but they also say we have no choice. Revolution is the only road to socialism. Even if you manage to create socialism by peaceful methods, the capitalist class won't allow a socialist society to exist in peace. They will trample socialism under the boots of marching armies and unless we fight back, socialism will be destroyed. But non-revolutionary socialists think that this can be avoided and are committed to creating socialism by non-revolutionary methods. So let's learn what these methods are. We'll start with the top right quadrant, which is the quadrant of non-revolutionary state socialists, represented by this little bolly ball. Say hello! Ooh, free campaign ad! Ahem! Vote for me next election! Ha ha! To none of you guys know how to say hello. Anyways, these socialists are sometimes called electoral socialists, because they believe the key to creating socialism is the electoral system. In other words, the key thing is for a socialist party to gain control of the state by winning the democratic elections that occur in capitalist countries. Their plan goes a little something like this. Step one, create a socialist party. Step two, members of that party run for election and gain control of government. Step three, once the socialist party has enough electoral success to control the majority of government, then the party can get down to business and start creating socialism. For example, doing things like nationalizing industry. Just major industries at first, but then eventually all industry, until private ownership of the means of production is completely abolished and replaced with state ownership. State socialists believe that if private ownership and control of the economy is replaced with state ownership and control of the economy, then boom, that's socialism. But libertarian socialists disagree. They say this isn't socialism at all. That if the state owns and controls everything, then the state becomes like one giant capitalist corporation. And workers switch from being exploited and oppressed by capitalists to being exploited and oppressed by the state and by its endless hierarchy of managers and bureaucrats. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. State socialists, of course, disagree with this disagreement. They say if a socialist party controls the state, it can act in the best interest of the workers, put policies in place that encourage workers' self-management of enterprises and industry, it can provide goods and services for free, and it can even take steps to create a moneyless society. In reality, no socialist party has ever gone this far, or even close to this far. There have been various times in various countries when socialist parties have had power. They had enough electoral success to control a majority government, and yet they've never gone beyond nationalizing a few industries and implementing social welfare policies. And now it's time for a question from the audience. Lucky black cat, I hear you exclaim from across time and space, if these socialists are into democratic elections, then why the hack and hack are they in the half of the compass? Well, I'm glad you asked. It's because they want to create socialism by using the power of the state, and as we discussed earlier in this video, the state, by nature, is authoritarian. That being said, socialists in the top right quadrant are in favor of multi-party democratic elections, and think the state should allow more civil liberties than the Soviet Union. So this makes them less authoritarian than most socialists in the top left quadrant. Earlier in this video, I mentioned that one of the types of socialists in the upper right quadrant are social democrats. So this must mean that social democrats want to create socialism through a democratically elected socialist government, right? Well, yes and no. This was the meaning of social democrat in the year 1918, and it remained the meaning for years to come. But as those years went by, social democracy slowly but surely evolved until it was no longer about trying to create socialism, but instead about trying to create a reformed version of capitalism. You know, capitalism plus more social welfare programs, more spending on social causes, more redistribution of income from rich to poor, a bigger public sector, and so on. Some people believe that this is a form of socialism, but social scientists, political scientists, and other people who know what they're talking about usually agree that no, it's not. Anyways, the point is that modern day social democrats have dropped the goal of socialism. They've abandoned it like a dad going to the corner store to buy a pack of cigarettes. And he'll be right back soon. I swear. Now, I do acknowledge that there are still some social democrats who are genuinely serious about wanting to create socialism. So to the genuinely socialist social democrats worldwide, I apologize to you. All 22 of you. No, just kidding. I'm sure it's more than 22. At least 24. There are dozens of us. Dissons! Nowadays it seems that those who are serious about using elections to create socialism no longer call themselves social democrats, but democratic socialists. However, it's not that simple. Democratic socialism is not a strictly defined term. So a lot of people who call themselves democratic socialists are not really socialists, but social democrats. Their goal is not to get rid of capitalism, but to reform capitalism. I'm looking at you Bernie Sanders. And to complicate things further, some democratic socialists are revolutionary socialists. Very different from the non-revolutionary socialists that dwell in the top right quadrant. So the only thing we can really say for certain about democratic socialists is that these are some confusing ass sons of bitches. But most democratic socialists are non-revolutionary state socialists. So if we have to choose a spot for them, the top right quadrant is where it's at. And also in the top right quadrant are some socialists who call themselves Marxists. Which might be confusing because didn't Marx advocate revolution? Why yes he did. But he also believed that when capitalist countries have democratic elections, socialist parties should take part in those elections. And he also gave a speech in Amsterdam in 1872 where he said the following, someday the worker must seize political power. But we do not deny that there are countries such as America, England and if I were more familiar with your institutions I would perhaps also add Holland. Where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means this being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the continent believer of our revolution must be force. So here Marx was saying that in some places workers could maybe gain power by elections. And once workers gain power they can then go on to create socialism. But Marx didn't think that just because workers gained power peacefully that the capitalist class would then just stand aside and allow socialism to be created peacefully. He made this clear in an interview in 1871. The interviewer was a guy named R. Landor and he said to Marx it would seem that in this country the hoped for solution whatever it may be will be attained without the violent means of revolution. And to this all Carly Marx replied But Mark me as soon as it finds itself out voted on what it considers vital questions we shall see here a new slave owners war. So what the heck did Marx mean by a slave owners war? He meant that things would go down the way they did after Abraham Lincoln was elected president of the United States. President Lincoln wanted to stop the expansion of slavery and the slave owning class rose up in rebellion along with many military officers and tried to overthrow the government leading to a bloody and brutal civil war. Marx was saying that the capitalist class would do the same thing as the slave owning class if an elected government ever makes a real attempt to create socialism. And actually something like this happened in Chile in September 1973. At the time Chile had a social democratic government led by president Salvador Allende. And although it's debatable how sincere their attempt to create socialism actually was it was still too far for the capitalist class. And so the capitalist class of Chile, the CIA of the United States and the Chilean military collaborated to violently overthrow the democratically elected government in a military coup resulting in a brutal right wing military dictatorship that lasted 17 years. So to sum up, Marx did not think elections would be enough to create socialism but he did think elections could play a role in advancing the socialist cause. Starting about 150 years ago socialist political parties began trying to use elections as the pathway to socialism and the earliest and most prominent of these parties was the social democratic party of Germany founded back, way back in 1875. The electoral strategy for socialism can be heard loud and clear in one of their old party platforms which states the democratic republic is the most favorable soil for the liberation struggle of the working class and thus for the realization of socialism. In theory their goal was to create socialism but in practice they didn't genuinely pursue that goal, rest in peace Rosa Luxemburg. Then in 1959 even the pretense of trying to create socialism was tossed out the window when they adopted a new party platform. I'll read you a quote from that platform so you can hear it for yourself. The social democratic party therefore favors a free market where ever free competition really exists and here's another quote. Private ownership of the means of production can claim protection by society as long as it does not hinder the establishment of social justice. I could go on but you get the idea can you imagine socialists who want a market economy and private ownership of the means of production? No you can't because anyone who wants that isn't socialist. This shift from at least giving lip service to supporting socialism to abandoning the goal of socialism altogether is typical of any political party that has aimed to take an electoral path to socialism. It's a pattern you see again and again. It's especially true for parties that have had some success at winning elections. The unsuccessful ones are better at staying ideologically pure. And by the way political parties with a social democratic ideology don't always have the words social democrat or social democracy in the name. Often they have names like socialist party or labor party and there are even some Marxist Leninists who end up behaving like social democrats. Most Marxist Leninists favor taking power by revolution but there are exceptions. The Portuguese communist party and the communist party of India are both Marxist Leninist parties but they focus on gaining power through elections. So why has social democracy shifted over the years from aspiring to create socialism to only aiming to reform capitalism? Well if you want to get elected you need votes. And if you want votes you need money. Money to fund your electoral campaign. To get votes you have to appeal to the politics that people have currently. And though it pains me deep in my heart to admit for most people and even for most of the working class their politics are not currently socialist. And this is why I cry myself to sleep at night. So that's votes and what about money? To get financial donations for your campaign the biggest donations come from people with plenty of money to spare. And those people you know tend not to be such big fans of socialism. So for socialist parties to get votes and money these parties have had to remove the genuinely socialist goals from their platform and replace them with reformist goals. Goals that only aspire to reform capitalism. And there are social democratic parties that have gone even further ditching their reformist goals and embracing austerity and neoliberalism. Now ain't that a bitch? There's also the problem that once the socialist party starts gaining some success in elections the party starts to attract people who are more interested in advancing their own careers as politicians than they are in advancing the cause of socialism. And even the people who do care about socialism might stop caring so much once they find themselves in charge of the government. As the saying goes power corrupts and attracts the corrupted. These are some reasons why other socialists think that the electoral path to socialism is a dead end. But non-revolutionary state socialists continue to think that at some point in the future their strategy will eventually work. My motto is if at first you don't succeed vote vote again. Well not just vote. Also work hard at campaigning to shift the tide of public opinion. Their argument is that at some point in the future socialism will become extremely popular. The majority of people will finally embrace socialism as a goal. Embrace it as their preferred type of society. And when that happens the conditions will finally be ripe for an electoral road to socialism. But revolutionary socialists say that even if a socialist party is elected and even if it actually makes a sincere effort to create socialism it won't be able to because the capitalist class will violently resist and the cops and military will take their side. But electoral socialists are optimistic that this won't happen. So who do you think is right? You be the judge. Okay so that was an overview of the top right quadrant the quadrant of non-revolutionary state socialists also known as electoral socialists and now it's time to move on to the final quadrant non-revolutionary libertarian socialists. Finally we come to the bottom right quadrant of the socialist political compass non-revolutionary libertarian socialists represented by this little buckaroo. Say hello? Google Murray Bookchin Okay Many non-revolutionary libertarian socialists are into some form of libertarian market socialism that's their preferred economic system but some of them are into communism. Even though the vast majority of libertarian communists are in favor of revolution and thus in the bottom left quadrant some libertarian communists reject revolution and are thus found in this quadrant on the bottom right and likewise when it comes to mutualists things are once again complicated even though mutualist theory rejects revolution mutualists in real life have taken part in revolutions. Many mutualists were involved in the revolution of the Paris commune. So which political philosophy belongs in which quadrant is not always divided this neatly? We're talking generalities here. Okay so now that I've made it completely clear how completely complicated and unclear things are let's get into it non-revolutionary libertarian let me say that again non-revolutionary libertarian socialism it's hard to say I mean I actually paused the recording to count the syllables it's 16 syllables quite a mouthful you know I haven't had that much in my mouth since well never mind. In case you didn't get it I'm talking about sucking dick getting back on topic this type of socialist believes we can create socialism if enough people gradually build it and they believe we can do this by creating things like worker owned cooperative businesses, consumer co-ops housing co-ops, housing squads, communes, mutual aid networks, libraries for things other than books such as tools or sports equipment, credit unions neighborhood assemblies, and so on these are all organizations that exist in real life in various places all around the world they exist in small numbers but still they do exist these are also all organizations that to some degree are based on principles of cooperation and mutual aid and sometimes these organizations are run by their members in a way that's relatively egalitarian and non-hierarchal with decisions made by direct democracy either majority rules or consensus not always all of these organizations can also be run in a way that is hierarchal and authoritarian and all too often they are however compared to most institutions in our society they are a lot more likely to be run in a somewhat egalitarian, somewhat non-hierarchal way and possibly more than somewhat in other words these organizations can to at least a small extent maybe more embody the principles of libertarian socialism non-revolutionary libertarian socialists believe that if enough people create these types of organizations then these organizations can gradually grow and spread until they eventually outgrow and overtake both capitalism and the state replacing capitalism with socialism and replacing the state with voluntary federations of self-governing communities one of the earliest and best known advocates of this gradualist evolutionary strategy to socialism was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon born in France in 1809 and I'll read you a little quote from Proudhon where he sums this idea up quite well by the way did you know Proudhon and Marx were actually alive at the same time as each other? it's true and not only that they knew each other and even exchanged letters where they debated their political disagreements in one letter Proudhon argues to Marx that revolution is not the solution and after Proudhon makes his case he follows it up with these delightful words to Marx this my dear philosopher is my present position maybe mistaken and if that happens then you give me the cane I would cheerfully endure it while waiting for my revenge wow dude that is quite an image yikes I await my revenge another well-known advocate of non-revolutionary libertarian socialism was a man named Murray Bookchin also known by his full name Google Murray Bookchin he believed that if millions of people in thousands of communities create directly democratic citizens' assemblies in their neighborhoods and then join those neighborhood assemblies together into municipal and regional federations then this system of directly democratic self-governance would be able to make the state obsolete and in this way the state could be abolished without being violently overthrown here's how Mr. Google Bookchin phrased it in one of his essays such a movement can be expected to begin slowly perhaps sporadically in communities here and there that initially may demand only the moral authority to alter the structuring of society before enough interlinked confederations exist to demand the outright institutional power to replace the state non-revolutionary libertarian socialists aren't the only ones who like co-ops and mutual aid networks and things like that many other types of socialists like these things too and I don't think any are downright opposed to them but a lot of them have critiques like for example critiques of worker-owned cooperative businesses but why why would anyone be critical of co-ops well in order for co-ops to compete in the market they have to play rough and adopt many of the same dirty tricks that regular businesses do like using business practices that harm the environment or make conditions worse for workers all because it saves money so non-revolutionary libertarian socialists what sayeth ye to these charges many of them will say well workers co-ops aren't perfect but they're still a lot better than capitalist-owned businesses workers get better pay and they have more power and then other non-revolutionary libertarian socialists will agree wholeheartedly that yes co-ops are very flawed but they say this is okay because these co-ops are just part of a transition towards communism or a moneyless marketless society and how it's such a transition occur different people have different ideas of how it might go but the general idea goes a little something like this if the number of co-ops grows big enough and diverse enough in the types of things they produce then co-ops could start supporting each other they could get their production materials from other co-ops for free as an act of support and solidarity and in turn they would donate to other co-ops it would be a network of mutual aid they could also start distributing goods directly to co-op members which would start to diminish the need for money the hope is that this would then weaken the power of regular capitalist owned businesses and gradually cooperative businesses would take their place and money become obsolete so that is a brief rough sketch of the plan but other types of socialists don't think this plan would work because for one thing it relies on worker owned co-ops becoming a big enough portion of the economy that they could start providing for each other's needs but getting to that point seems unlikely to even start a co-op each worker has to invest thousands of dollars just to get the business off the ground this is something that many working class people cannot afford and for those who can afford it it's usually more money than they're willing to risk after all for example in the United States statistics show that about half of small businesses fail within five years and the outlook in other countries is more or less just as dismal the result of all this is that most workers will either be unable or unwilling to start a co-op even if they like the idea this explains why co-ops are such a tiny fraction of the economy in response to this non-revolutionary libertarian socialists say well, yeah nobody's saying that growing the co-op sector would be easy but we believe it can be done revolutionary socialists and electoral socialists don't think a pathway to socialism can be built through workers co-ops through communes or mutual aid networks and so on they don't think these things can grow enough to become a threat to capitalism or the state and even if they did as soon as these organizations became a danger or even a nuisance to capitalism the state would find a way to destroy them like by creating laws to hinder and suppress them this is why the socialists from the other three quadrants believe that it will take more than this to create socialism with electoral socialists saying it will take gaining power through an election and revolutionary socialists saying it will take a revolution the revolution is my boyfriend but non-revolutionary libertarian socialists disagree they say if these co-ops and other alternative institutions become so popular that the state tries to destroy them then people can fight back through protest, civil disobedience labor strikes and other non-violent direct action other socialists don't think this would be enough because as history repeatedly shows the state is very willing to use violent force to crush any movement it sees as a threat to capitalism non-revolutionary libertarian socialists don't deny that the state has used violent force to stamp out socialism and they agree that there's a risk of this happening again but if it did many of them think that it's acceptable to use armed self-defense so long as it really is limited to armed defense it doesn't escalate into armed overthrow of the state but other socialists say it's not enough to just defend against attacks from the state because so long as the state continues to be controlled by capitalists or according to some so long as the state continues to exist at all the state will continue to be a non-stop, never-ending threat and what do non-revolutionary libertarian socialists think the most interesting response I've heard from them is that the state won't be able to pose a threat for much longer their argument goes basically like this ecological and societal collapse seem closer every year so it might not be too long before the state falls apart and when that happens whatever threat the state once posed will be a thing of the past revolutionary socialists reply to this by saying you'd be surprised how resilient the state is there are places in the world where there has been societal collapse and the state has crumbled and new states rose to take their place even if these states were just small fiefdoms run by warlords and to that the non-revolutionary libertarian socialists reply ah yes but this occurred in places where there was no non-state alternative waiting in the wings but what if there is one day the state will collapse and if we already have a vast network of alternative institutions in place a federation of neighborhood assemblies co-ops and so on then we can just step into that power vacuum that the crumbled state has left behind and establish a new system pretty easily and if we already have mutual aid networks this will help us survive an ecological collapse and in response to this revolutionary libertarian socialists and revolutionary socialists in the borderline zone say you're right it is good to have a vast network of alternative institutions waiting ready to go in case there's a collapse but there's no way workers co-ops can grow numerous enough to build this network instead workers should create their own labor unions unions that are democratically run by the workers themselves rather than by union bureaucrats and these unions will enable workers to have organizations waiting in the wings ready to take over the means of production in the event of a society-wide collapse so in reply to that argument non-revolutionary libertarian socialists say well whether it's co-ops or labor unions either way if we're in a collapse situation where the state has fallen apart this can give us a path to socialism without revolution and to that revolutionary socialists say even if the state falls apart a new state power might be created and if this happens you need to be prepared to confront and destroy it because if you don't it will destroy you so that's basically the debate feel free to make your own judgment of who is right wrapping it up socialists have many different political philosophies with many different names I listed 27 of them in this video and there are more that I didn't even list it can all seem overwhelming but if you view them through the framework of the socialist political compass then understanding the various types of socialists becomes a lot easier because you're able to cluster them into just 5 broad categories revolutionary libertarian socialists non-revolutionary libertarian socialists revolutionary state socialists also known as vanguardists non-revolutionary state socialists also known as electoral socialists and last but not least revolutionary socialists on the border between libertarian and authoritarian now obviously the differences between different types of socialists are more varied and more complicated than this even socialists in the same section of the compass have significant differences but on the issue of strategy the issue of how to get from a capitalist society to a socialist or communist society these are the major categories that every type of socialist falls into so let's quickly review each category in the top left revolutionary state socialists believe that socialism can only be created by revolution that revolution requires a state that the state must be controlled by a political party of professional revolutionaries known as a vanguard party and that this party must rule as a one party dictatorship in the top right non-revolutionary state socialists believe the key to creating socialism is for a socialist party to take part in democratic elections gain control of the state and use the power of the state to create socialism in the bottom right non-revolutionary libertarian socialists believe we can create socialism by creating things like worker owned cooperative businesses mutual aid networks credit unions, neighborhood assemblies and other organizations that can gradually replace capitalism and the state in the bottom left revolutionary libertarian socialists believe that socialism can only be created by revolution that revolution must abolish both capitalism and the state and must create a society of directly democratic self-governed communities and self-managed workplaces joined together in federations where no one has power over anyone else and finally revolutionary socialists in the border zone they believe that socialism can only be created by revolution and that revolution requires a political structure that is a working class democracy which may or may not be called a state and this political structure has less hierarchy than a normal state but more hierarchy than the political structures that libertarian socialists want Another way I need help is with financial support for making these videos so if you'd like to donate you can at patreon.com slash one lucky black cat I also have ko-fi, paypal, for one-time donations if you have any thoughts on the video including disagreements or things you think I got wrong feel free to leave a comment and by the way if you want to watch more of my videos in less than 30 seconds a few options will appear on the screen that you can click on the video that will appear here I think is especially important because it explains how a socialist and communist system can work how they can function and how they can balance supply and demand without any market economy without state or central planning and even without money Alright kids, that's the end of the show Thank you for watching and remember to love yourself and each other