A World Without Governments Anarchism Explained
video description
Date: 2025-01-11
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
HildeTheOkayish
I believe some overarching organisation will always be necessary, but on more local levels anarchy may be preferred. It's not a one size fits all solution in my opinion but that does not mean it should be discarded entirely. Nor does the situation have to be black and white either.
Even in places where anarchy is currently practiced you will find that there are people who become central points of interaction by default. Either due to their knowledge on a subject or their likability. But the major difference is that those central positions aren't enforced.
To give an example, say there is one person who is currently leading by default. Because he seems to have a lot if knowledge on the project. But then that person turns out to be a terrible human being. In an anarchist system you can just turn your back on him and work it out with the rest of your group. But in a company as we have in most places today you are stuck with him as manager because of the power dynamic. And that is really the root problem here.
reply
I believe some overarching organisation will always be necessary, but on more local levels anarchy may be preferred. It's not a one size fits all solution in my opinion but that does not mean it should be discarded entirely. Nor does the situation have to be black and white either.
Even in places where anarchy is currently practiced you will find that there are people who become central points of interaction by default. Either due to their knowledge on a subject or their likability. But the major difference is that those central positions aren't enforced.
To give an example, say there is one person who is currently leading by default. Because he seems to have a lot if knowledge on the project. But then that person turns out to be a terrible human being. In an anarchist system you can just turn your back on him and work it out with the rest of your group. But in a company as we have in most places today you are stuck with him as manager because of the power dynamic. And that is really the root problem here.
reply
crpCph
8: 00 I can see how this can be a critique, but it makes me think what would successful Occupy movement look like. I think we should be careful as not to define success in neoliberal terms, where the end point is some law being passed or a demand being met by the government. If you imagine that we can go back to normal once the goal is reached then you are not doing anarchism, right Because anarchism is not just the means of political pressure but a way of being and a way of organizing.
Many groups choose free association as their pillar, because no one can be forced to participate. So it is fairly common for such groups to ride the momentum, unite and break apart, change and transform over time. I see some ongoing discussions about embracing the fluidity and spontaneity of these movements, so to all comrades: if you get heavily discouraged by this, try to treat it as a feature, not a bug!
reply
8: 00 I can see how this can be a critique, but it makes me think what would successful Occupy movement look like. I think we should be careful as not to define success in neoliberal terms, where the end point is some law being passed or a demand being met by the government. If you imagine that we can go back to normal once the goal is reached then you are not doing anarchism, right Because anarchism is not just the means of political pressure but a way of being and a way of organizing.
Many groups choose free association as their pillar, because no one can be forced to participate. So it is fairly common for such groups to ride the momentum, unite and break apart, change and transform over time. I see some ongoing discussions about embracing the fluidity and spontaneity of these movements, so to all comrades: if you get heavily discouraged by this, try to treat it as a feature, not a bug!
reply
michaelodonnell824
My real issue with Anarchism is that I wonder how water would still come out of a tap (faucet if you are North American)
Whether we like it or not, we need some organizing authority to ensure that basic services are available. That means that infrastructure is built and maintained and the those who do the building and maintaining gain enough resources to enable them (and arguably those who depend on them) to survive.
Looking back into meta-history, the idea that there were no Governments does not mean that there were no organizers and no rules/rulers. Whenever and wherever twentieth century anthropologists encountered primitive groupings, what they found was leaders, leadership groups and systems of control within those groupings. The State may be little more than 5, 000 years old, but centralized leadership is far, far older.
reply
My real issue with Anarchism is that I wonder how water would still come out of a tap (faucet if you are North American)
Whether we like it or not, we need some organizing authority to ensure that basic services are available. That means that infrastructure is built and maintained and the those who do the building and maintaining gain enough resources to enable them (and arguably those who depend on them) to survive.
Looking back into meta-history, the idea that there were no Governments does not mean that there were no organizers and no rules/rulers. Whenever and wherever twentieth century anthropologists encountered primitive groupings, what they found was leaders, leadership groups and systems of control within those groupings. The State may be little more than 5, 000 years old, but centralized leadership is far, far older.
reply
neilmarkcorre5524
why do I feel like this is another one of those ideologies that are only good on paper.
Coming from a third-world country (or developing country, however you want to coat it, these ideas will implode given how a bunch of hungry people act when given the opportunity. The example of naturally lining up for a bus even without cops around often never worked where I came from. Based on what I observed back home and moving to a first-world country - people's yearning for survival triumphs whatever ideology for peace and/or order philosophers propose.
P. S. I haven't read anarchist books yet. Definitely adding it to my list. Currently focusing on morality and ethics right now. So, yes, the statement above is just nit-picking on a specific statement in the video that contradicted my personal experience.
reply
why do I feel like this is another one of those ideologies that are only good on paper.
Coming from a third-world country (or developing country, however you want to coat it, these ideas will implode given how a bunch of hungry people act when given the opportunity. The example of naturally lining up for a bus even without cops around often never worked where I came from. Based on what I observed back home and moving to a first-world country - people's yearning for survival triumphs whatever ideology for peace and/or order philosophers propose.
P. S. I haven't read anarchist books yet. Definitely adding it to my list. Currently focusing on morality and ethics right now. So, yes, the statement above is just nit-picking on a specific statement in the video that contradicted my personal experience.
reply
meatharbor
I just want to clarify that private property is different from personal property. These two things commonly get conflated in discussions about socialist and anarchist politics. Personal property is anything that's owned for the purpose of utilizing it's use value while private property is anything that entitles it's owner to the exchange values produced by it, such as arable land, sources of clean water, homes, machines, tools, etc. that the owner isn't directly utilizing or investing their own labor into.
If you expect to be paid just because you own the thing and use violence to prevent others from using the thing specifically so you can profit off the thing without investing your own labor in the thing, that would be private property.
Your toothbrush and vibrating back massager is personal property.
reply
I just want to clarify that private property is different from personal property. These two things commonly get conflated in discussions about socialist and anarchist politics. Personal property is anything that's owned for the purpose of utilizing it's use value while private property is anything that entitles it's owner to the exchange values produced by it, such as arable land, sources of clean water, homes, machines, tools, etc. that the owner isn't directly utilizing or investing their own labor into.
If you expect to be paid just because you own the thing and use violence to prevent others from using the thing specifically so you can profit off the thing without investing your own labor in the thing, that would be private property.
Your toothbrush and vibrating back massager is personal property.
reply
SystemsMedicine
My issue is: where would I go to find in depth answers to serious questions about how cultures will proceed under anarchism [I am not looking for an argument, I am looking for realistic solutions, or at least well thought out ideas. ]
ps It was my impression (from reading a single book of collected anarchist essays, that anarchists from the 19th century could reasonably have been relabeled as anti-monarchists’, with many different notions about what should replace deposed monarchies. [Some of them even pointed to the U. S. as having desirable elements of anarchism. I’m not sure why they thought that. ] I know the definition has greatly evolved, but I don’t even know a rigorous or comprehensive or functions definition for anarchy nowadays.
reply
My issue is: where would I go to find in depth answers to serious questions about how cultures will proceed under anarchism [I am not looking for an argument, I am looking for realistic solutions, or at least well thought out ideas. ]
ps It was my impression (from reading a single book of collected anarchist essays, that anarchists from the 19th century could reasonably have been relabeled as anti-monarchists’, with many different notions about what should replace deposed monarchies. [Some of them even pointed to the U. S. as having desirable elements of anarchism. I’m not sure why they thought that. ] I know the definition has greatly evolved, but I don’t even know a rigorous or comprehensive or functions definition for anarchy nowadays.
reply
treymacaluso1364
For anyone wondering what this looks like at a large scale, it's worth looking into the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES, also colloquially called Rojava. Their guiding principles are based off of the works of Obdulah Ocalan, who was heavily influenced by anarchist/communalist philosopher Murray Bookchin. They are a stateless governance representing several million people, they have a military, a justice system, and an economy. They were instrumental in defeating ISIS during the war there. They're not explicitly anarchist, they're self described as a democratic confederalist society, but a lot of what they do aligns closely with those principles.
reply
For anyone wondering what this looks like at a large scale, it's worth looking into the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES, also colloquially called Rojava. Their guiding principles are based off of the works of Obdulah Ocalan, who was heavily influenced by anarchist/communalist philosopher Murray Bookchin. They are a stateless governance representing several million people, they have a military, a justice system, and an economy. They were instrumental in defeating ISIS during the war there. They're not explicitly anarchist, they're self described as a democratic confederalist society, but a lot of what they do aligns closely with those principles.
reply
MOLLOYALLOY
Anarchism is appealing in at least some form but a major critique is that pre-historical societies were egalitarian and co-operative because human psyches were different and less ego dominant. With the advent of civilisations there was a gradual increase in ego dominant psyches, culminating in today where ego dominates. In essence humans are plastic: we are capable of being co-operative and altruistic and we're capable of being individualistic and competitive. For a majority of humans to have less dominant egos there would need to be a spiritual revolution in conjunction with a political revolution otherwise it will be limited in how well anarchism (or socialism) can work.
reply
Anarchism is appealing in at least some form but a major critique is that pre-historical societies were egalitarian and co-operative because human psyches were different and less ego dominant. With the advent of civilisations there was a gradual increase in ego dominant psyches, culminating in today where ego dominates. In essence humans are plastic: we are capable of being co-operative and altruistic and we're capable of being individualistic and competitive. For a majority of humans to have less dominant egos there would need to be a spiritual revolution in conjunction with a political revolution otherwise it will be limited in how well anarchism (or socialism) can work.
reply
SD-tj5dh
The thing is when anarchism becomes fully organised you end up with a form of government anyway. When your tribe comes up against another tribe you look to a leading figure to preserve your way if life. At that point you have a government and a figurehead. Now you have to decide what hapoens with the figurehead, or whether the figurehead is now in a position to do what he likes.
Anarchism isnt a form of government. Anarchism is the primordial soup in which new societies form. The most basic form of humans organising themselves for greater personal benefit by proxy of the formed group.
Even the most primitive looking of family tribes has a figurehead.
reply
The thing is when anarchism becomes fully organised you end up with a form of government anyway. When your tribe comes up against another tribe you look to a leading figure to preserve your way if life. At that point you have a government and a figurehead. Now you have to decide what hapoens with the figurehead, or whether the figurehead is now in a position to do what he likes.
Anarchism isnt a form of government. Anarchism is the primordial soup in which new societies form. The most basic form of humans organising themselves for greater personal benefit by proxy of the formed group.
Even the most primitive looking of family tribes has a figurehead.
reply
antagonizerr
Societies built on socialism with their value on equality represent an idealized impression of how humans 'should' act. The problem is that there will always be a sect of this society that believe that they are 'more' equal than the rest. The unfortunate part is that socialism lacks the tools necessary to keep these people in check with things like laws and regulations that use violence as a threat against people who break the tenets of society. That's the rub, isn't it So, a blended ideology makes infinitely more sense. Say. socio-capitalism for example. It's not ideal, but it's infinitely more effective at maintaining a stable society.
reply
Societies built on socialism with their value on equality represent an idealized impression of how humans 'should' act. The problem is that there will always be a sect of this society that believe that they are 'more' equal than the rest. The unfortunate part is that socialism lacks the tools necessary to keep these people in check with things like laws and regulations that use violence as a threat against people who break the tenets of society. That's the rub, isn't it So, a blended ideology makes infinitely more sense. Say. socio-capitalism for example. It's not ideal, but it's infinitely more effective at maintaining a stable society.
reply
FQT_Keller-Ash
I grew up in kind of anarchist household while my parents were not anarchists they always treated me with equality and never thought of themselves as better than me. They didn’t make me respect them because of their authority but because of their kindness, we have an amazing relationship now I am much closer to my parents than anyone else I can think of. There is an idea in society that if you don’t punish kids than they will become spoiled brats but my parents rarely and I mean rarely punished me and I have always been complimented on how respectful I am. I believe this is the correct reason I am an anarchist.
reply
I grew up in kind of anarchist household while my parents were not anarchists they always treated me with equality and never thought of themselves as better than me. They didn’t make me respect them because of their authority but because of their kindness, we have an amazing relationship now I am much closer to my parents than anyone else I can think of. There is an idea in society that if you don’t punish kids than they will become spoiled brats but my parents rarely and I mean rarely punished me and I have always been complimented on how respectful I am. I believe this is the correct reason I am an anarchist.
reply
nrgrlsd9931
The greatest example of anarchism in modern times, a real life example, is Somalia. That country had no functioning government for more than a decade and it was not utopic or harmonious. All the other micro examples of anarchism mentioned in this video were carried out within the bounds and protection of a functioning government. The government is the only thing that keeps the wolves out of the gate. Everyone who believes they live in a civilized society with civilized people are just a defunct government away from finding out how wrong they are.
reply
The greatest example of anarchism in modern times, a real life example, is Somalia. That country had no functioning government for more than a decade and it was not utopic or harmonious. All the other micro examples of anarchism mentioned in this video were carried out within the bounds and protection of a functioning government. The government is the only thing that keeps the wolves out of the gate. Everyone who believes they live in a civilized society with civilized people are just a defunct government away from finding out how wrong they are.
reply
davidcheater4239
A bit more about Kropotkin.
Along with being a geographer he also worked with theories of Evolutionary Biology and was a major critic of Social Darwinism. His book Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution, rejected the concept that interpersonal competition was the sole factor in evolution in favour of examining how different forms of Mutualism (Mutual Aid) were important forces. A lot of these theories have been absorbed into modern Biology including: Kin Selection, co-evolutional (ie bees and flowers, and the study of altruism.
reply
A bit more about Kropotkin.
Along with being a geographer he also worked with theories of Evolutionary Biology and was a major critic of Social Darwinism. His book Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution, rejected the concept that interpersonal competition was the sole factor in evolution in favour of examining how different forms of Mutualism (Mutual Aid) were important forces. A lot of these theories have been absorbed into modern Biology including: Kin Selection, co-evolutional (ie bees and flowers, and the study of altruism.
reply
Biga101011
6: 50 This is the problem. The response to rational critique is always to point the finger at the system in place. It took millenia to build the system we have. Reform is one thing, but if we want to replace at a large scale we better be absolutely certain about what we are doing. Things could be unbelievably worse than they are, so let's not break things until we know exactly what we are going to be replacing it with. And. Maybe get something to work stably at a small scale before looking at overturning things en mass.
reply
6: 50 This is the problem. The response to rational critique is always to point the finger at the system in place. It took millenia to build the system we have. Reform is one thing, but if we want to replace at a large scale we better be absolutely certain about what we are doing. Things could be unbelievably worse than they are, so let's not break things until we know exactly what we are going to be replacing it with. And. Maybe get something to work stably at a small scale before looking at overturning things en mass.
reply
Pfhorrest
Re 4: 10 anarchism isn't just deeply influenced by socialism, anarchism is a form of socialism, and is the original form of socialism before any notion of employing states toward socialist ends were thought up. Socialism began with anarchists seeing that capitalism was a product of the state and so calling for the abolition of the state, and it wasn't until later that other socialists thought perhaps the state could be used against capitalism instead of just abolished. Proudhon predates Marx.
reply
Re 4: 10 anarchism isn't just deeply influenced by socialism, anarchism is a form of socialism, and is the original form of socialism before any notion of employing states toward socialist ends were thought up. Socialism began with anarchists seeing that capitalism was a product of the state and so calling for the abolition of the state, and it wasn't until later that other socialists thought perhaps the state could be used against capitalism instead of just abolished. Proudhon predates Marx.
reply
PingMe23
Thank you. I'm tired of Anarchy = no rules, break and steal stuff! 1!
I believe anarchy is the final form of society for humanity. Eventually we will be so tired of hierarchy in all its forms that we'll work to make sure it never returns. It will take constant vigilance to stop individuals from gaining power over others, but eventually it will be as natural as breathing. It won't come in my lifetime, not by a long shot. But one day, humanity will abolish hierarchy.
reply
Thank you. I'm tired of Anarchy = no rules, break and steal stuff! 1!
I believe anarchy is the final form of society for humanity. Eventually we will be so tired of hierarchy in all its forms that we'll work to make sure it never returns. It will take constant vigilance to stop individuals from gaining power over others, but eventually it will be as natural as breathing. It won't come in my lifetime, not by a long shot. But one day, humanity will abolish hierarchy.
reply
gibberishname
An-Caps aren't anarchists, they just want to be the head of the unethical authoritarian class. It It exacerbates economic inequality which encourages the formation of exploitative corporations leading to monopolies or oligopalies without a state to regulate them, prioritizes the rights of capital over vulnerable populations, privatizes agencies needed for the common good such as infrastructure like roads, or civic defense such as military or police, etc.
reply
An-Caps aren't anarchists, they just want to be the head of the unethical authoritarian class. It It exacerbates economic inequality which encourages the formation of exploitative corporations leading to monopolies or oligopalies without a state to regulate them, prioritizes the rights of capital over vulnerable populations, privatizes agencies needed for the common good such as infrastructure like roads, or civic defense such as military or police, etc.
reply
Naiadryade
As someone who believed in anarchism for years, and gradually shifted my opinions more towards democratic socialism -- I think you did a great job here covering the basics about the various aspects of the movement and its philosophy. Thank you for doing it justice, and especially for giving credit to the many anarchists who have decided to just build community and do as much good in the world as they can as the best way of affecting change.
reply
As someone who believed in anarchism for years, and gradually shifted my opinions more towards democratic socialism -- I think you did a great job here covering the basics about the various aspects of the movement and its philosophy. Thank you for doing it justice, and especially for giving credit to the many anarchists who have decided to just build community and do as much good in the world as they can as the best way of affecting change.
reply
natefoster5454
Anarcho communism and anarcho capitalism are functionally the same thing. No state means no enforcement of a unified policy. Which means you'd just get a region of dissunified communities that would end up competing with each other. Then, eventually, they'd arrise one community to eventually reinstate themselves back into a power. The community that ends up winning anarchy would just be the ones with the most weapons and support.
reply
Anarcho communism and anarcho capitalism are functionally the same thing. No state means no enforcement of a unified policy. Which means you'd just get a region of dissunified communities that would end up competing with each other. Then, eventually, they'd arrise one community to eventually reinstate themselves back into a power. The community that ends up winning anarchy would just be the ones with the most weapons and support.
reply
goyoelburro
One angry kid with a gun did more to shake up corporate management than the entire Occupy Wall Street movement
Emma Goldman's longtime partner Alexander Berkman wrote in his book that the _Propaganda of the Deed_ was not effective b/c it did not work for him when he did the same to Henry Clay Frick during a coal miner strike. I think Alex was just too early for the late 19th century worker. They didn't deserve him.
reply
One angry kid with a gun did more to shake up corporate management than the entire Occupy Wall Street movement
Emma Goldman's longtime partner Alexander Berkman wrote in his book that the _Propaganda of the Deed_ was not effective b/c it did not work for him when he did the same to Henry Clay Frick during a coal miner strike. I think Alex was just too early for the late 19th century worker. They didn't deserve him.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
11:38
