Episode

Today we talk about some misconceptions about Anarchism as a political philosophy, how Anarchists differ in their views of hierarchical government, a common strategy of organization centered around federated networks, and whether or not the government is where an Anarchist should be focused in the world we live in. Hope you love it!
Get more:
Website: www.philosophizethis.org/
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Philosophize This! Clips: / @philosophizethisclips
Be social:
Twitter: / iamstephenwest
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
TikTok: / philosophizethispodcast
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂

[@123gillam]

Superb episode. Liberty, Equality, Solidarity - Great principles . To me personally, anarchy is first and foremost "Ethical Self Government" The challenge is to find intelligent , like minded, open minded Individuals and from a small base, any groups that are subsequently formed will be "organic" Thank you Steven West. You are most definitely on the pulse of current events . Keep it coming, you are essential listening, I refuse to waste my precious time participating in nonsense discussions with uninformed, confused, arrogant, indoctrinated people. Your wisdom and eloquence is much needed in this insane corrupt corporate tyranny that we are currently living in.

[@philosophizethispodcast]

wow thank you. feel compelled to add one thing: I wouldn't have anyone listening if these weren't ideas and a nuance of thinking that a LOT of people out there are relating to. Just saying I think the people listening are just as responsible for any of this. I will remain as humble of a mouthpiece for this as I can and continue to try to get better. Thanks for listening.

[@perion1]

​@@philosophizethispodcast Hello Stephen West. You are an absolute delight to listen to. I find your podcasts extremely helpful in understanding key concepts of philosophy. I have a REQUEST. Though I understand your podcast to a great degree, I am at times unable to grasp the scope and magnitude of these heavy words you use like epistemology, ontology,realism, metaphysics etc. I do understand the basic meaning of these terms but find myself failing miserably when I try to think deep and long on these subjects. Online resources are much scattered to form a solid understanding of these concepts. Do you think it is worthwhile making standalone episodes on these philosophical disciplines explaining chronologically the evolution of thought, its thinkers and the current frontiers of these topics? I would really enjoy such episodes as much as I do others. Thank you. Cheers to amazing 2024 ahead.

[@AliTahreiSh]

These are good is an ideal world And in an ideal world any isem works perfectly

[@123gillam]

@@AliTahreiSh You can live your life based on your world view. l believe in Ethical self Government. Suggest you listen to Epitectus (The stoic slave)

[@AliTahreiSh]

@@123gillam I live in real world that not all people think and act like me

[@MichaelALoberg]

Yes we should. Positively.

[@j.blanzy]

….and what government? The ghost in the shell?

[@vapormissile]

​@@j.blanzyamen, unfortunately. There is apparently something we hate, and it hides itself behind regular people like you or me. Try smashing or usurping our contrillers, & it appears all you'll do is hurt or inconvenience someone you didn't intend. Like fighting yourself.

[@skyteus]

Anarchists are the best of us! Thank you for this episode! 🎉

[@alanryan7605]

Great film on Netflix about a man who took on the UK banking system / establishment for a community town on north of England "The Bank of Dave'. Shows what's possible. Great episode.

[@standowner6979]

I haven't even watched the video and I'm already fearful. Most people (sometimes even the people that have done the "reading") either misinterpreted or outright misunderstand anarchism.

[@williampetrovic5427]

There's a definite spectrum for Anarchist types and where they fall on that spectrum is determined by their differing views on what anarchism is in general. You really can't compare an Anarchist like Max Stirner to Peter Kropotkin for instance. So, just saying "Anarchist" becomes problematic.

[@standowner6979]

5:56 I never knew Chomsky "stole" that idea from Peter Kropotkin's 'Are We Good Enough'.

[@milesgussin5274]

I love this show. Talk about it and share it with my friends. You have helped me so much

[@Vladimir-Struja]

Zizek has a good response to this decentralized democracy.... I tend to agree with him....

[@GorillaTVe]

This channel is gold.

[@user-gu9uc6uv4g]

Hey Stephen!! Loved the episode, I'm a long time listener of the show and I love every minute of it. About your request for sending questions for next episode, I truly hope this massage will reach you. I left the same reply on Facebook just in case 😅. So I have actually been thinking for quite sometime on Anarchism as a way of life for the past few years now, and some questions has come up. Beyond the obvious, yet much real, problems about the actual possiblity of Anarchism coming about - such as the problem of security against conflict with others and the need for an army to defend one's community (I live in Israel so... you know) - one thing I've found problematic against the very idea of Anarchism as being good in the ethical sense is the difference that exists between life, and particularly the ethical life, for an individual who lives under an imagined community (to use Anderson's term) as opposed to life in a non-imagined community where one's life is only determining and determined for and by "real" people. By real people I mean people that you know and work with on a personal level. people who know your "face" and you know theirs back, and most importantly people that can tell you when you wrong them without you needing to "think" ot rather imagine their suffering first. This latter kind of a community is what I imagine Simon Weil had in mind while constructing her version of ethical life, and probably more accurate what Emmanuel Levinas hold for the place where the Ethics happens - "the face of the other" being the basis for Ethics. For this reason I hold Anarchism to be preferable ethicly, which also constraints this philosophy to a version of a non imagined community only, and here lays the problem for me. In the world that we live in imagined communities form as matter of fact almost every society that we know. From nations, religions, countries, cities to corporates, baseball teams fans and anime's online communities. To this observation another is added Which claims that people's identity in our world in so entangled in those imagined communities that asking for their disassembly and destruction is tantamount to ask of them to dismantle their on identity, to distroy who they are. Now on top of this already difficult moral problem another one present itself in that an "Anarchist" so to speak cannot (while being morally consistent) ask or demand of people outside his own community, his own "real" community I might add, anything politically driven. Meaning that Anarchism is not infact a political philosophy but rather a philosophy as way of life, since being political, as in demanding things from people you don't know or share a community of solidarity with, is exactly what "Anarchism" reject. To sum's up, the thing that gives Anarchism it's preferablity over other kinds of systems and ways to structure a society - that being it's ethical demand for ethical life with people you know, such for example that one's inevitable use of power over them will, if it wrong them in some way, be met with them telling him to his face what he has done while giving him the chance to repent - is exactly what hold it from ever becoming a political idea, a political philosophy. Because for it to remain true to it's ethical demand it cannot meddle with other people way of being, especially not with those he doesn't know personally. Which becomes even harder when one's realize that his "Anarchist" demand is a calling for the destruction of people lives, people other then himself, people he doesn't know. I hope I was clear in what I said above, although I have a feeling that I wasn't. Anyway I will be happy to elaborate more if needed and if you find any of it interesting. Thank you again for being you ❤️ You were my first philosophy teacher and for that I will always be grateful 🙏. Happy New year!!

[@drphosferrous]

Most of us understand not to rob our neighbor but we don't understand how to create a socioeconomic existence that doesn't rely on someone robbing their neighbor. We know not to subject someone else to our will without their consent, yet our system relies on someone compelling the rest of us to their will and we don't really consent, we just don't know how to fix it.

[@danielmorkes6518]

Yesss, i've been so looking forward to this one!! Thank you

[@chancegann299]

My question on the thoughts presented is how do we hold every self governed group to the same standard across the world and if we don’t do that how do we prevent groups from gaining power over eachother by waging war or other kinds of conquest. TLDR: How do we ensure against a descent into tribalism in the event a group decides its superior to others.

[@drphosferrous]

I think kropotkin said our instincual tribal identity that makes us unlikely to harm or oppress our neighbor,cousin,coworker,etc needs to be applied to all of humanity or life in general. That's a shift in consciousness.

[@AliTahreiSh]

@@drphosferrouswhich is impossible if you know how human kind lives and thinks

[@drphosferrous]

@AliTahreiSh yeah, we're all kinda assouls and have a hard time identifying with a group of over a few hundred. We have a big evolutionary advantage though. We're capable of deciding how we want to organize our society. Is it human nature keeping us from doing that,or an extractive elite minority?

[@AliTahreiSh]

@@drphosferrous yes but still we cannot use utopian ideologies. We should be realistic. We should consider the dark side of our nature while forming our thoughts and solutions for creating a better world. Just look at history

[@drphosferrous]

@AliTahreiSh yeah, anarchism is idealist philosophy, not a playbook for a new system. Our history is awful though and we need to find a way to stop being awful, not because a king or ruling elite tells us to do it for their benefit because that could never happen anyway. We need to want and work towards a less predatory,exploitative existence because we care what happens to the human race, even after we die.

[@davidwadsworth1760]

You have always been my favourite, but this is my favourite of all of your episodes ever, and I have listened to them all! Thanks Stephen! Very much looking forward to this series!

[@Darkwasthenightcold]

That is a real quote at 13:59 it Tacitus who claims it's what the defeated Caledonian chief 'Calgacus' said to his troops at the battle of Mons Graupius

[@nikimehta720]

Thank you 🎉🙏following you since 90th episode..love all your series

[@daviddebydeal243]

John B recommandation the best teacher!!

[@funkbungus137]

oh shit, love me some Malatesta

[@sappho9089]

Love it❤

[@MrKudeba]

Could you please explain the difference between anarchism and libertarianism? Loved the episode btw. Thank you!

[@reagancapwell685]

Libertarians are anti state but not anti capitalism. Anarchist are anticapitalist. Historically they were also called libertatian socialists

[@MrKudeba]

@@reagancapwell685 Thanks for the reply! Would I be correct in saying, libertarians feel the hierarchical authority of a corporation is justified?

[@vitomarin101]

Being a Platonist, in terms of societal structure, it is great to hear the other side of the debate intelligently explained. Thank you Stephen 🙂, I look forward to hearing the rest of it.

[@Alex-yj3ol]

Help me get over my desire for hierarchical authority - my concerns about Anarchism are: 1) Nukes. Nuclear deterrence is unfortunately a great way to secure your liberty. Centralized control is crucial for the safe management of nuclear weapons. Advocating for Anarchism argues for decentralizing nukes, bioweapons, chemical weapons etc. -In a world of decentralized, autonomous communities, the risk of nuclear proliferation could increase. I do not want to live in a world where every "decentralized, federated network of communities BASED on free association" feels compelled to possess nuclear warheads to guarantee their liberty. The less nuke buttons in circulation the better, period. -Since the 90s, there has been a huge decline in the number of nuclear warheads due to successful denuclearization treaties, showing a benefit of hierarchical and centralized organization. Nine countries currently possess nukes (the less the better) decentralization would increase the desire for nuclear proliferation. Effective treaty enforcement including centralized agreements, third-parties and enforcement mechanisms like sanctions or military intervention are inconsistent with anarchist principles. -Would Ukraine be invaded if it still had nukes? 30 years ago Ukraine was one of the world's largest nuclear powers and it only denuclearized in exchange for security guarantees from Russia, the United States and others. Given historical precedents, it's uncertain whether communities, especially in a decentralized structure, would feel safe to voluntarily disarm. 2) How would an anarchist society defend itself from true threats? Hierarchy may be an emergent property of human conflict. Societies who do it best overtake those who don't. How do you deal with your authoritarian neighbor who has a massive military and streamlined, efficient decision making process? 3) Tragedy of the commons? In an anarchist society, addressing collective challenges like overfishing or pollution becomes complex, especially when neighboring communities do not cooperate or acknowledge global issues like climate change. Imagine your neighboring “free-association, decentralized, networked community” is quickly raising the standard of living for its people by overfishing, polluting and unsustainable resource extraction. Your communities' efforts to compel them to reduce their living standard for sustainable, environmental reasons do not work because they don’t believe in global warming. What’s more, you are increasingly losing significant amounts of your population because they are freely associating their way over to the unsustainable community. The neighboring community is full of really effective propaganda (they can dedicate many resources to this) which is convincing your own population to leave and what’s worse they are starting to organize in favor of a new political system based on private ownership and hierarchy called “capitalism”? WWYD? 4) The Dilemma of Temporary Authority? At the end of the episode you mentioned Chomsky stating: "sometimes you need one authority in the short term to deal with another authority which is more urgent and problematic." This suggests a perpetual challenge in anarchism. Constantly arising threats (real or imagined) might necessitate continuous creation of temporary authorities, undermining the foundation of anarchism. 5) Scale? As societies grow, the transition from small, anarchist communities to hierarchical structures seems historically inevitable. How would Anarchism work at scale without reinventing centralized government? At some point, you’ll want to appeal to a third-party for disputes, which involves deciding who is best fit for a third-party arbitration, and before you know it you're holding elections for the position and recreating government. Relevant: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJrFdYGte52VoNU 6) No hierarchy = freedom from coercion? Unless we live in a post scarcity world, coercion is absolutely necessary to ensure societal functioning, even if we have the best *insert utopia* political system. Anarchist’s focus on freedom v.s. coercion isn’t relevant because coercion is not an intrinsic property of *insert current society* due to hierarchy. One could imagine a huge capitalist world where everyone has UBI and is less coercive than a small, anarchist farming society where working the fields is a brutally coercive necessity to feed a growing population (many such cases). The big UBI society may be less coercive even if it has more hierarchy. Absolute freedom is not inherently virtuous, for example the limitations we place on children's freedom for their own well-being. What's good for our well-being is more important than just being free from force or control. We should think more about what keeps everyone thriving and safe, rather than just focusing on being free from control. 7) “Just leave”? Anarchist principles of free association overlook the complexities of individual circumstances. Stating you can just leave the community if things aren’t working out is incredibly reductive as it implies each individual is a completely flexible independent agent without any responsibilities. For example: A racial minority who is being violently oppressed by their anarchist community is full-time caregiver for their artistic adult child. The caregiver knows they cannot coerce anyone else in the community to take care of their child who will die without their care if they leave. They also know that the neighboring communities cannot be coerced into accepting them and/or their child because those communities are also bigoted. The caregiver is now compelled to receive violent oppression by their community. How is this solved by free association via “just leave”? History has shown many communities turning on their own for irrational reasons, literally where the term “witch-hunt” comes from.

[@philosophizethispodcast]

thanks so much for how much effort you put into this!

[@Alex-yj3ol]

@@philosophizethispodcast Thanks! I really enjoy your work with the podcast 😃

[@JoshuaDb_The_Witness]

Hey brother - I just wanted you to know how much I dig your podcast. I discovered you during a rough time in my life a few years back - and your podcast was helpful. Ill explain. One of the issues I have had to deal with is rumination - to the point of that it wasn't helpful. All my life I have heard 'You think too much!" granted - I found out later in life that Im AuAdhd - so yeah - I think a lot! LOL! And I would argue with folks who said I thought too much. Well - listening to your podcast gave me an idea. As I enjoy being a contemplative cat - but acknowledge that I often have a hard time "turning it off" - in listening to your show it occurred to me that if I was a bit more "organized" with my contemplative time - in the way that so many of the great thinkers have over the years - then I could perhaps figure our where I get "stuck" - and be able to take a little more "control" over my non stop head. And its helped a ton. I wouldn't have considered this had I not started listening - I truly believe that. Thanks for all you do man. Much respect!

[@Xz-de4yk]

I think you could be onto something, this resonated with me, thanks for sharing your story :)

[@AliTahreiSh]

I wonder how those temporary institutes work? What happens to the people who woek there? Who pays them? And how? Who handles the documentation? Who does the executive tasks? Who takes care of the building where they gather to make decisions? Is anybody in charge of security? What about preparing food for people who work there? (Maybe everybody bring their own sandwich!) If there would be an organization to manage all these, what would be its name? Government?!

[@Amazology]

👋 Stephen West - I've listened on and off to your PT for some years. It's very helpful and educational. I love it. I've tried to grasp a superficial understanding of western philosophy over the years with no formal training but I'm sure you know more about my question. "The authority of the problem" - Is what's on my mind since you're covering anarchy here. I have to leave this abstract but it's to do with how we are conditioned from birth to solve problems and see things in terms of problems and solutions. Here's my question: Karl Popper said "All life is problem solving" which is very punchy and sounds convincing but how, would you say, is the antithesis of this approached in western philosophy and by whom ? Let's please exclude eastern philosophy if we can because my intuition says the Tao etc. has this covered in it's own way. Thanks for everything.

[@novinceinhosic3531]

yes!

[@960random]

I enjoyed this episode and look forward to the next! IMO, government justifies itself to combat irresponsibility. Therefore, abolishing government is futile without abolishing irresponsibility.

[@nikolaybelorusov5522]

Thanks for making an episode! Question for you to explore in your next podcast, what are some examples of the "biggest" or "successful" communities that were build on anarchist principles?

[@stephanscharf5524]

I have heard of some examples in India. Auroville for example.

[@perion1]

Hello Stephen West. You are an absolute delight to listen to. I find your podcasts extremely helpful in understanding key concepts of philosophy. I have a REQUEST. Though I understand your podcast to a great degree, I am at times unable to grasp the scope and magnitude of these heavy words you use like epistemology, ontology,realism, metaphysics etc. I do understand the basic meaning of these terms but find myself failing miserably when I try to think deep and long on these subjects. Online resources are much scattered to form a solid understanding of these concepts. Do you think it is worthwhile making standalone episodes on these philosophical disciplines explaining chronologically the evolution of thought, its thinkers and the current frontiers of these topics? I would really enjoy such episodes as much as I do others. Thank you. Cheers to amazing 2024 ahead.

[@devilishegg]

Question 1: Would you prevent small factions within the larger society from making rules that are against how we see liberty today? I.e. A group votes for sharia law. 2. Who would choose what decisions need to be voted on and what the options should be? If the answer is 'create a committee', well, who will create that committee to create the committee. 3. Would these communities over time turn into pseudo nation-states that would compete against each other? What would prevent that?

[@Alex_Freeman]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 *🎙️ Anarchism is not simply about overthrowing the government but involves questioning hierarchical authority structures in society.* 01:38 *🤔 Anarchism challenges the notion that authority figures, whether in family, religion, work, or government, have an inherent right to rule without justification.* 05:11 *💡 Anarchism prioritizes questioning the necessity of hierarchical authority in various aspects of daily life and aims for increased freedom in decision-making.* 09:11 *🔍 Anarchism encompasses diverse perspectives and does not adhere to a singular doctrine, encouraging free thought and exploration of alternative societal structures.* 14:16 *💬 Anarchism advocates for values like liberty, equality, and solidarity, which are interlinked and essential for building a just and free society.* 16:52 *🌐 Anarchism promotes organization from the bottom up, envisioning a decentralized federated network of communities based on voluntary association, rather than top-down governance.* 18:29 *🗳️ Anarchist communities aim for democratic decision-making at the base level, emphasizing direct participation rather than representative democracy.* 19:37 *🔄 Temporary delegation of power is key in anarchist communities, with instant revocation if the community disapproves of the delegates' actions.* 21:43 *🌐 Anarchist organisation proposes a decentralized federated network, where communities voluntarily form unions and confederations for collective decision-making.* 23:49 *📉 Anarchists critique corporate power as a contemporary form of tyranny, advocating for dismantling private sector authority through state regulation.* 25:56 *🏙️ Anarchist perspectives suggest addressing corporate power before overthrowing the state, highlighting the complexities of power dynamics in contemporary society.* Made with HARPA AI

[@fritzthebat]

Great episode! You asked for questions. Here's mine. How could our current system successfully transition into a responsible anarchic coalition (direct democracy) without a mini apocalypse in between them?

[@5ivearrow233]

Many anarchists understand the answer to this question to be what we call "prefiguration." In a nutshell, this means that we begin building the society we believe in now, parallel to the systems we currently live under. As those parallel systems grow and expand and attract greater numbers, there will come a moment when we will inevitably have to defend it, as power cedes nothing. I hope that helps answer the question!

[@user-ej7lk1ko5m]

Hey Stephen! I loved your episode on anarchy. It was a helpful way of reframing for me. As I was listening, I did have one realm of power that I’m curious what anarchism’s might approach: discrimination in the broadest terms. I think we’d all agree you can’t justify the authority men have over women for example. Seems like the system of just ‘leaving a community if you found it corrupt’ is at best unfair at worst unrealistic. Thank you! I love your show. Happy new year!

[@tessajadeprice]

This can be a problem with certain anarchist groups. Most of these are amenable to votes to make changes. If these don't work, members have the option to leave. Groups are also very flexible in anarchist communities, they appear and disappear relatively frequently. One solution we have found in the community to organize women under anarchist ideas is to form our own group to talk to one another and advocate for our needs in other groups.

[@williampetrovic5427]

I always understood the definition of Anarchism (from the Greek term) to be more of a personal thing - to be RESPONSIBLE enough to operate without laws. To basically evolve to that mindset. I don't think it's possible as a large scale thing - maybe just in small groups. So, current Anarchists are more geared twords socialism - a collectivism which is the direct opposite of independence and liberty. Most self professed Anarchists I've met seem to just want power themselves - disagree with socialism and you'll see exactly where they stand. Anarchists ignore human nature, and it's inner desire to naturally overcome resistance of any sort - a direct drawback to Socialism. They offer nothing but another hierarchy of dominance in the long run.

[@balsarmy]

You are right. There is only one option - personal conscience and responsibility. Every decision is influencing others. Things you consume, your comments here, what you do for a living and your dream.

[@standowner6979]

We're in a Philosophy channel and people still use the same arguments that slave owners used. "It's aGaiNsT hUmAN nAtURe" Sigh. ---------------------++++++++++-------- What prove do you have that it can only work on small scales?

[@standowner6979]

Correction: hear not read

[@DiogoJ1]

@@standowner6979 The same can be said about the reverse. What proof do you have that it would work on a large scale?

[@AliTahreiSh]

⁠​⁠the fact that people always been greedy, Jesus, violence, etc in last ten thousand years and will be till they exist proves that it's against human nature. Have you seen any sign that human nature has evere slightly changed?

[@ahmadnawaz6612]

hell yeah!!!!

[@Vladimir-Struja]

Actually, there is a book called "anarchist cookbook" out there, but it is antithetical to everything said in this episode :)

[@user-uj9lj1yp2p]

Steven, thank you for such a wonderful discussion. In response to your request for a question - rule from the grassroots is endemically majoritarian. Even in communities that are voluntarily joined, complete conformity is impossible. So, if I join a community, but have a deeply held conviction that disagrees with the opinion of the majority, how are my individual rights guaranteed? In a top down democratic society, the courts have typically been an antimajoritarian safeguard against trampling individual rights. How is that replicated in a grass roots majority-rules type society?

[@wkuser]

Great show! FYI the custom Nord link in the show notes on the latest ep of the podcast (on Apple) goes to a 404

[@philosophizethispodcast]

it's fixed. thank you! :)

[@niklasvanderwagt8157]

Hey Stephen, thanks for the great episode as always. I've loved listening over the years as I drive and walk to random things, and today I stayed in the car an extra few minutes to soak in the anarchist gospel or something. For the next episode, I think it might be helpful to talk about the etymology of anarchism. I was asking myself this while listening to this episode, especially when you talked about how anarchists and anarchism are stereotyped in certain ways. I wanted to know what the word 'actually' means - seems like a good place to look for what could unite these diverse thinkers who all call themselves anarchists. Also, why is it anarchism and not another word, like egalitarianism or something (other than becasue this ism has already been snatched up)? Is it significant that the absence of authority seems to be emphasized in the word (a google search reveals 'without a chief' from Greek) rather than the positive assertion of liberty, equality, solidarity? Also, I think it would be cool (and maybe other people would too?) to see an episode or multiple episodes on population ethics. With existential threats feeling more real every day and the future feeling less predictable, people might respond to discourse on how we should think about procreation and population. I've had multiple friends say they don't want to have kids because of climate change, which is a pretty metaphysically weird decision to make. Between the non-identity problem and antinatalism and the repugnant conclusion, I think there is a lot to talk about. This is also one of the only areas of philosophy I am somewhat read in, so maybe I'm just clamoring for something familiar. In any case, looking forward to many episodes to come. Happy New Year!

[@jerrypeters1157]

Q: which guiding principles would an anarchist society suggest for the education of their youth?

[@jerrypeters1157]

Q2: would there be an emphasis on certain subject matters - for instance, responsibility and decision making?

[@123gillam]

Liberty Equality Solidarity. 0pen mind, 0pen heart. Respect

[@FractalWizardryWorlds]

Picture school as a mind-bending adventure! 🍄 It's like diving into a psychedelic trip where everything IS the same trippy space! 🌌 No 'us vs. them' vibes - it's all about grooving with the oneness of space, man! 🌀 No more lines dividing stuff, just this epic cosmic dance where everything swirls together in a wild universal flow! 🌟 It's like those magic mushrooms revealing the cosmic unity, blurring out separations. School's not just books; it's a mind-blowing journey into understanding the universe's radical unity! ✨

[@drphosferrous]

​@@jerrypeters1157read bakunins boot maker, no thanks, id rather read batman and your authority over me is a harmful artificial social construct

[@AliTahreiSh]

@@123gillamnice words that are far from the reality of human nature

[@elkiness]

What a great job you are doing! Thank you so much, I have learned a lot with you. I listen to you on Spotify, it's nice and clear, but came here to be able to leave a few comments. Re: this episode. What I don't understand is why these people who seek equality, etc., don't take a long, hard look at places where just such societies have been attempted. In the US, many, and usually very shot lived. In Israel, as part of nation building, many kibbutzim--communes, run as you describe. I'm 77 years old now, but when I was 16 and 17, I became fascinated by the idea of being part of a community of searchers of social justice. Communism, you could say, but with a small "c". These communities have contributed more than their share in the nation building in the government, farming, and in the army, while working out how to govern themselves with total equality and humanistic values. So--before it was a thing--I took off a year from my studies, and, finishing High School, earned by myself the money to fly to Israel and volunteer for a year. By now, most kibbutzim have failed as social experiments, and are no longer communal. Why? What does this tell us about humans, even the most idealistic among us? Yes, I went back to the States, got my first degree, as I'd promised my parents, found a like minded partner, and returned to Israel. It's never been easy for me here in the Holy Land, especially now--with 3 grandsons in the Gaza war, and rockets aimed at my area very frequently, horror stories to absorb every day. Not only from the TV, internet, newspapers, (We have a very different news feed from you. but from those who experienced and/ saw the worst. The whole country is in a state of trauma now, but if one thing shines through, it's seeing how we are part of a very big and supportive family--the Jews, inheritors of a tragic history. Even in the retirement community in which I now live, groups of women are knitting warm scarves for soldiers, many refugees from the south (Gaza strip), and the north (near the Lebanese border) are living here as they have no home to return to, or it's too dangerous. (We have a very different news feed from you.) Almost everyone is volunteering in some way--helping farmers take in crops, working in hospitals, etc. Sorry--got carried away! Thank you again--for anyone who's read all this, and especially Steven West.

[@SocraticMethodGuy]

I would LOVE to have a conversation about this topic, as it's been a major focus of my entire life. Socrates plus politics equals hilarious, and truth. Nothing convinces like comedy, especially when fused to undeniable common sense and fair play.

[@standowner6979]

16:59 It's kinda funny. There are anarchists like this. There's a school of thought under anarchism that has that as a one of its pillars.

[@SawTomorrow]

You asked for questions. K. As I'm listening, as you describe these ideas of potential post-capitalism "systems," I'm on the edge of my toes, waiting for that last piece of information where you'd confirm that the natural conclusion of anarchist revolution would greatly resemble our current system. Question now: Did you write this, intending that?

[@kinseywk]

I wonder if some amount of delegation/representation isn't a practical necessity since there's not enough time for everyone to stay informed & abreast of all things. And if that's the case, I think the main issue for anarchism to solve is how best to balance that need for delegation with the hierarchy it creates. Another practical issue that always bubbles-up to the top of mind when thinking about these topics: Border control/security and regional land management. If an anarchic society takes the form of a patchwork of hyperlocal enclaves, I can foresee all kinds of border & land disputes cropping-up between the less cooperative factions. And if an organized outside threat were to appear, we'll have already completed the first half of "divide and conquer" for them.

[@WalterGMorris]

I have a couple of questions: (1) How do small, decentralized social units protect themselves from predation? Consider Nozick's argument regarding monopolies of power. Wouldn't an anarchic group of polities eventually surrender, a la Hobbes, their individual sovereignty to protect their existence? (2) How could anarchic communities work without private property and free markets. Forget, for the moment, the boo-word "capitalism". How could they form sustainable patterns of specialization and trade without enforcement of property rights, and who would enforce those rights? Thanks.

[@dawidp4227]

I have two questions. Firstly, liberty is not really a "default state" of being, so how is it going to be enforced if there is no central authority? For example, there might be a community which practices slavery, which obviously restricts the liberty of the slaves. If other communities stepped in and disbanded or somehow punished the community of slave-owners, that would mean they have to enforce power over that community, which would create hierarchical structure of communities and we'd just go back to square one, reintroducing the concept of a centrally-governed state. This ties nicely into my other question, which is: how is the federated communities system drastically different from what we have now? The communities would have to localise, creating small towns. The communities would create unions - similarly to how multiple towns and cities form a district or a state. And unions would form confederations, which are basically anarchist version of countries. As the unions and confederations grow in scale, the number of minor decisions is going to grow and the communities are going to be overrun by them, so they are probably going to elect a representative to make them. This office can't really be temporary, because it's not a single project which needs supervision, but rather a number of small things, like placing road signs, running the sewage system, flood prevention. There is going to be another office needed to be a delegate for a union or a confederation - and this is another office which is going to stay indefenitely. People holding these offices are going to become the de facto leaders and at the confederation level - the central government. An anarchist might try to refute this by saying that the community is going to closely watch their representatives decisions, but the thing is - this is how it's already supposed to work and it doesn't. The whole reason why these representatives were elected is that the number of decisions were too much for everyone to follow. One solution might be media - group of people who report on the most important topics, but you've already pointed this out - the media are going to gain power this way. Someone might say that the difference lies in the fact that everyone can leave a community/union/confederations as they see fit, but the problem now is - if a confederation wants to, e.g., build a nuclear power plant, but none of the communities want it built on their grounds (kind of a nimby attitude), the power plant is just not going to be built, so we're left with a powerless confederation, which functions more as a trade union rather than a society of people united by a common goal. Honestly it just seems like the anarchists simply want more decentralization of power by transferring it to the local governments, but this isn't that revolutionary.

[@wszechbytdoskonay3071]

yes

[@06306108670]

Hi, You mentioned in this show to ask questions about our doubts in anarchism. I have a few questions. As you described, in an anarchist society, people choose authority in temporary basis, just for a task, but ultimately everyone is participating in the decision making. Most obvious question is how would this work in a country with a population of even just 10 million people, let alone a billion? If everyone or most people participating in the decision making, where would they get the capacity and the knowledge to participate? How many hours a day an average citizen has to do the governing?😅 And even if I overlook these problems of capacity and awareness, this is a very democratic way of decision making; in an anarchist society, how would they approach a problem like climate change? Would they sacrifice their comfort and lifestyle to save the planet? Just because a decision made democratically, that doesn’t make the decision necessarily right. What checks and balances can make this type of governance not to choose a holocaust, or their own extinction democratically? Also the views, attitudes and ideas of anarchism what you briefly discussed in the first episode of the upcoming series on anarchism, all seems like these ideas are based on an ideal society, like there is a ground zero moment to rebuild(build) how we going to live. It seems like it doesn’t take into account the current state of affairs of the world, for example time sensitive challenges like climate change, or how much the population indoctrinated with capitalism and consumerism, at the point where it’s seems like a religion, a natural order(in a sense of Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism) etc. Thanks for the show by the two episodes on Han was exceptional.😊 I would love to hear an episode on Hegelian marxism, Görgy Lukács(History and Class Consciousness?), Tamás Gáspár Miklós etc.

[@standowner6979]

I recommend that you read the introductory book on the topic 'Anarchy Works' by Peter Gerloos

[@standowner6979]

If you're feeling spicy read 'Demanding the Impossible' by Peter Marshall

[@standowner6979]

13:50 Max Weber's definition of the State.

[@xavierhillroy2461]

Hey Stephen, This is the first time I listened to this podcast, and I really enjoyed it. This is also the first time I'm learning about anarchy. One aspect that particularly intrigued me is the concept of temporary delegation of power. I love the idea of it, but I'm grappling with how it could be implemented efficiently in real life. I have a couple of concerns: 1) The process of constantly electing individuals for specific roles seems potentially cumbersome. I understand the rationale behind it - avoiding the pitfalls of prolonged, unnecessary power. However, I'm not entirely convinced about its efficiency. Could this frequent change not lead to lots of wasted time and resources due to constant elections? 2) My second concern is about the practicality of getting things done when faced with difficult problems. I can imagine a high turnover of delegates, especially in situations where problems lack clear-cut solutions, and nothing ends up happening. It seems like a community might end up in a cycle of assigning and revoking roles, making it difficult to address issues effectively. Again, this is my first time really learning about anarchy, so I'm not sure about the validity of these concerns or whether I misunderstood something. I would love to hear what others think about this. I'm super grateful that my friend recommended this podcast to me; looking forward to the next episode.

[@PhilosophicalBachelor]

I like the idea of how the 3 concepts of liberty,equality and fraternity and all needed at the same time in anarchism. Can you pls provide the source of this?

[@anthonyp3113]

Starting this and hoping for a WKUK reference...

[@christinemartin63]

Possible--in a very practical way--at the local level ... in a small town ... with a homogenous population ... in nearly total agreement with each other. Otherwise, these are pretty utopian ideas that have been tried countless times in history and have repeatedly failed. (Terrific presentation offering much food for thought.)

[@cflamingo2486]

Yay let's do it!... I have a question though....what about projects that have to be tackled on a global scale, like climate change...not saying that our current way of doing that is necessarily more effective.

[@standowner6979]

What about them?

[@AnaSilva-jk4wk]

I'm very excited about this series! But one itch that needs scratching for me: at first glance, corporations and the private sector seem closer to anarchism than governments (in the sense that, even tho they are both hierarchical, there's more free association at play in the private sector). But, like you implied, corporations seem way more powerful/scarier than governments, mostly because of the "voluntary collective brain wash" which seems inevitable in any societal arrangement. This sounds like bad news to the hypothetical anarchical society... We tend to be pretty irrational when "electing" our idols and who we trust to execute change, wouldn't that be still a problem in an anarchical set-up?

[@dwhoker8284]

Id say yes, but less of a problem. Any hierarchical system can give a potential "idol" a ton of power, a litteral states worth of control. An anarchist non hierarchical world, would still see us falling to cults and charismatic strong leaders here and there, Im sure. But like, now they don't have nukes and an unimaginable amount of power

[@beangobernador]

wow never knew this community was so active

[@n-khil]

Ty Stephen West! #2k24

[@romarssieverything9667]

Good thing I am not asleep 2 am. Just saw this within 15 minutes.

[@anubhavsharma904]

Go sleep, you got school tomorrow.

[@standowner6979]

School??? A couple of days before new year's eve?

[@nasseh3587]

Of course

[@RKrUSHe]

Hi Stephen. I do not know if you will read this, but I have a question about your latest episode (#192) How will those voluntary associations or communities address issues like security, infrastructure or even social order in the absence of a centralized authority such as the government? Plus, this idea of anarchism could have great potential in the 20th century, but in the 21st century we live in a world of misinformation and constant online presence. Wouldn't these big players that corrupt the government also influence the communities or individuals through misinformation and targeted ads (just like we have nowadays), making it as easy or even easier for them to be in power? Sorry if any of these questions were already answered or if they are little off. I'm new to the anarchism topic and trying to learn 😁 (I sent this exact message to your Facebook page, I didn't know how to contact you, so I'm sorry about publishing this twice 😁)

[@iendorseyou]

Could you also talk about things like emergent strategy by Adrienne maree brown? She talks about this in her book

[@anubhav4956]

I have a question. Anarchism sounds so similar to communism. I mean how do you differentiate between these two. I think an anarchist believes that people are an ideal version of themselves and the same goes with communist. Anyways I love your podcasts and can't wait for part 2.

[@SocraticMethodGuy]

Anarchism means no rulers, not no rules. Very few people are capable of it

[@noahbrown4388]

Therein lies the problem, most people want to be lead unfortunately

[@SocraticMethodGuy]

@@noahbrown4388 far overshadowed by the problem... that women lack all ethical obligations, in comparison to their innate, relentless desire to accumulate resources... that men are almost hopelessly addicted to the DRUG women can provide, and that both are largely scared, stupid, sheep, content with mediocrity, and a simpleton's version of entertainment and escape. What is to be done? Anarchists gather together and dare to engage in lethal self defense against those who would steal their resources and freedom.

[@standowner6979]

@noahbrown4388 Source: I made it the phuck up.

[@DiogoJ1]

@@noahbrown4388 It's not even about being led. I can't trust many people to behave whitout any laws to keep them in check.

[@noahbrown4388]

@@standowner6979 Did Blovid teach you nothing?

[@HidekiRyugaxx]

I never liked the idea of Anarchy but it's good to have someone reasonable show me different viewpoint. Thank you for the episode

[@standowner6979]

Why?

[@DiogoJ1]

@@standowner6979 Because it puts trust on the idea that people can do the right thing individually whitout any sort of rule to restraint them. It just doesn't work. People are too different from each other. Only chaos can be born from such differences.

[@drphosferrous]

​@@DiogoJ1i think the anarchist answer would be "ok, you do you,i can respect that... wouldn't it be great to have a world where oppression,exploitation,thievery,and heirarchies were occasional small crimes instead of the bedrock of our civilisation? How do we get that?"

[@DiogoJ1]

@@drphosferrous Problem is, that is virtually impossible. To keep order, laws must exist, and for laws to exist, a form of government is needed. Corruption exists in any country and can't be completely eliminated.

[@andrewbowen2837]

​@@DiogoJ1you're looking at a country level, when you should be looking at a community level instead. There would be rules and customs, not laws. You can easily keep a group working together when they are smaller. But with anarchism, there wouldn't even be a country; it would be fragmented, localized, town hall referendums and initiatives

[@AliTahreiSh]

When I check out a new thingamajig, I always suss out how it views people. Does it think everyone's on the same wavelength? Are they all about honesty? No one's gaming the system? Everyone's working for free? It's all lovey-dovey? If the thingamajig doesn't see humans for who they really are, I don't take it too seriously.

[@freakishclover]

Hello Stephen as per your request at the end of the video I have a question. If I live in an anarchical society and I find a nuclear bomb with a note attached to it that says "free to a good home", can I keep it?

[@timothyjudsontaylorofficia9786]

Before you dismantle it, you’d better have a well designed plan for replacing it. The system we currently have is utterly broken by rampant criminality embedded into government and financial systems, but I do not hear anyone offering a viable replacement. Until I hear that plan, its a hard no. Just my 2 cents.

[@AliTahreiSh]

What if one of these small federations decided that slavery is ok and attacked to the next small federation and took them as slave? It seems a little familiar. It used to happen all the time till people decided they need a central power to stop this kind of things to happen

[@ClockShaft]

Anarchist Unity ✊

[@johntreat8893]

Whatever ur planing im in I only read the title

[@juniorphiri2561]

Noam Chomsky's view on anarchism is not strategic. He plainly admits to this as well. He sets out the values, but others, whether wisely or unwisely, have gone a step further. Like David Graeber and his focus on horizontal leadership as opposed to vertical leadership. Where for him, you just ignore the government or the authority and act like you're already free. And in doing this I think a meeting point occurs between Chomsky and Graeber. Chomsky very much believes in setting up a system, such that when the State is eventually opposed, the gains of society won't fall into ruin. And in Graeber's stance, this work will have been set up...such that when eventually the insecure authoritative state, cooperation or power inevitably violently opposes the working anarchist society, the society will be ready. I think Anarchism is the opposing of illegitimate authority, and the ignoring of it.

[@jumpysalmon]

Who are the most famous anarchists? Thanks Mr. West

[@standowner6979]

15:11 Weird thing you said here. Who determines this so called "equality"?

[@projectmalus]

The "we" and the "government" in the title are posed as two separate things which requires someone not complicit in engaging with society, and these people added up as the we presumably. In a similar fashion the right to life and right to choose are posed as two things to choose from in one arena for each person to see differently, however the equipment given hasn't the right of choice so it's nonsensical. It's two questions posing as one choice. Should the government overthrow itself tomorrow? Yes, it's called just another day. Look outside the human to see it truly differently, for instance how powerful yet self stifling grass is. Who does that remind you of? The question is more complicated. If there are no individuals and only collectives at two levels, the collective human in symbiosis with other objects in the world as free will collectively, and the so-called individual which is a collective with gut bacteria etc and having free choice via a representational entity as person or self that is non-object but able to choose what to consume. In which is the right frame, either or both together, to ask questions of anarchy? Both, but they are different questions as in the right to life or right to choose frame? Thanks.

[@HamCar1000]

I think libertarianism and anarchism are closer than many anarchists think. When I read Mises I understood something many libertarians seem to misunderstand: yes the government has a monopoly on violence, but the people who’s collaborations form the market itself opt in to this arrangement freely so that the government can protect the market. People don’t see that the government exists on top of the market, not vice versa, and no one wants to opt out of the market and live on an island and do literally everything themselves, i.e. never collaborate. The government is just the security needed to collaborate safely and soundly in the market. It’s when government bloats and expands to other ambiguous duties when the chronic problems start. The market itself is free and built from the bottom up by our collaborative actions and a unit of currency is the same value for all. Anarchists don’t seem to contend with the need for a market and a need to police that market, and when they do they become libertarians.

[@standowner6979]

At first I was confused about how you differentiate libertarianism and anarchism then I realized that in some countries they mean different things. In the USA libertarianism is minarchism.

[@standowner6979]

Anarchists are not against free markets, they're against capitalism. These are not the same. For more information: Market not Capitalism by Kevin Something

[@HamCar1000]

@@standowner6979 I just read the synopsis on Amazon and it appears to in fact be by a certain Gary Something. I would say that what he is describing is free market capitalism and not anarchism as he claims but I don’t know and perhaps it is in the end only semantics. But it also seems he wants markets without hierarchies which seems oxymoronic to me.

[@standowner6979]

@HamCar1000 I suggest you actually read the book instead of taking conclusion from an Amazon synopsis.

[@standowner6979]

You're right, it's not Kevin it's Gary Chartier and Charles W. Johnson, the editors of the book.

[@GalenZacharyRobbins]

Generally how would disputes between groups be handled in this free association model without the whole system devolving into tyranny?

[@standowner6979]

People keep asking the same questions in this comment section. Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloos answers most of your questions.

[@GalenZacharyRobbins]

​@@standowner6979 Thanks will check it out.

[@zuz-ve4ro]

discussion -> mediation -> compromise -> disengagement, pressure or violence. you can't go around the fact that if people disagree and want to kill each other, they will in fact try to do that, anarchists argument is simply that we manage that better learning to practice democracy and being equal to each other, and valuing consent

[@user-pr3in1wd2m]

Co design and Co production.

[@balsarmy]

Think twice, think wise

[@TennesseeJed]

Hot Topic ain't punk rock or anarchy!

[@d4c715]

My personal concern on anarchism is that by having the world full of different groups, even if inside the groups there would be total equality and freedom, from the outside you would have a maybe even more divided world where one group ,like another person said in the comments, choose to focus more on the climate while another would choose scientific advancements over immediate climate change measures. Another example would be with one group advancing so much that they start going to mars while others are digging and living underground. You would have people believing in whatever they want depending on their group and after a while there would be no communication between different groups. Unless there is something connecting groups together, like a basic common goal, to improve the world for example, I don't think it would work... Edit: Unless of course there is communication and democratic systems that enable all groups to participate in certain choices which sounds very difficult the least.

[@standowner6979]

If someone is starving and that person lives 4 block away from you, and you have the resources to help them, wouldn't you help them?

[@standowner6979]

There are millions of people starving today while companies overproduce food and then destroy the surplus. There are people without clean drinking water while others are going to space for fun.

[@d4c715]

@@standowner6979 yes but how is that relative to what I was saying? The problem isn't on whether one group would help the other but without communication and understanding it could be worse than what we have right now with all the different cultures and religions...

[@zuz-ve4ro]

well yeah here's the importance of internationalism in the movement. as an anarchist, I can't really say more than that "we should work to prevent that if harmful". it's not that any state system manages (or can manage) it better, I'd say it's just a statistical feature of diverse world if you will. on the colonisation of mars, if that's not a very large territory, it's rather improbable that a smaller territory has an opportunity to do it before the big federation

[@michaelnelson2976]

Just to ask a devil's advocate question here, isn't the system described here by anarchism just bureaucracy with more steps? I realize that it has more ability to move around, but isn't thi just wildly inefficient?

[@EdLrandom]

it's funny, I'm an anarchist and happy to listen to this but I hate Chomsky now lol

[@standowner6979]

I was scared (figuratively) about how you'd present these ideas on this episode and I've gotta say: it's a meh episode. Not because I agree/disagree with the POV but because of what you focused on. I honestly recommend you to read 'Demanding the Impossible' by Peter Marchall. Best introductory book on Anarchism. But it's kinda long.

[@talktopeoplebetter8163]

Is there any e-mail where I can send to?

[@standowner6979]

11:20 So you're equating Government to State...

[@scoon2117]

Anarchy & Peace ✌️

[@DiogoJ1]

Those two don't go together. Peace can only be achieved through order.

[@DiogoJ1]

No. It will only hurt people, and anarchy isn't worth it.

[@Edmonddantes123]

Not sure I’d lead the anarchism arc with Chomsky. He’s not an original anarchist thinker, and arguably not the most representative among anarchists

[@whiskeyfriends7188]

Question; how could bottom up society ever work when the wealthy will never listen to the middle class, and likewise the middle class will never listen to the working class??

[@standowner6979]

Short answer: revolution. Long answer: it's revolution + a bunch of other things.

[@balsarmy]

Do you think working class is listening to middle or wealthy people? If working class is ready to go to cashless society etc. There are mindless people in every part of society

[@davej5529]

So you wiped out all levels of government

[@scientificsurrealism1489]

Bismillah.

[@noahbrown4388]

Inshallah ;)

[@noahbrown4388]

Yes, but it won’t happen. Not yet anyway

[@skyteus]

Yes. ... ... In minecraft im minecraft chill cill chill

[@gabrielvaino4673]

This is obsurd! You ask me to leave a comment without providing a comment Officer present to weigh my comment and place it as they see fit? The anarchy!

[@derrick_v]

Michael Malice, if you want someone who breaks this topic down.

[@standowner6979]

Nah.

[@derrick_v]

@@standowner6979 actually, Yes.

[@standowner6979]

Michael Malice is actually a bad entry to anarchism. I have serious doubts about him being an anarchists at all. And let's not get into his fascistic tendencies. A good introduction to anarchism is Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloos

[@derrick_v]

@@standowner6979 fascistic tendencies?

[@standowner6979]

Yep

[@SPACEDOUT19]

We wont if they all give us hot gfs

[@standowner6979]

What about aromantic asexual people?

[@loreleilee8797]

You dont get to talk about women like that

[@SPACEDOUT19]

@@loreleilee8797 cry more weirdo