Proudhon: Introduction to Mutualism and Anarchism

[@wcropp1]

Proudhon is the man. Many anarchists like to act as if mutualism was simply a crude first attempt at theorizing what a post-capitalist society may be like. The theories "evolved" into "real anarchism," i.e. anarcho-communism. I have nothing against communist anarchists, and perhaps it is an improvement in some ways, but there's nothing to say that mutualism wouldn't be better for certain sectors of the economy, certain historical periods, or simply just preferred by some. It certainly seems more palatable to the more individualistic anarchists, who did indeed exist despite them being largely ignored today. Mutualists and individualists are not anarcho-capitalists. If you want to see change, you've got to be flexible with your tactics. Why not have an economy with a multitude of post-capitalist arrangements and see what works best? Long story short, it's good to see mutualism getting some love. Great video, my friend!

[@travismcgreat3823]

I hated that post 2008 influx of disenfranchised Ron Paul fanboys flocked to mutualist forums and tried to muddle in an cap BS.

[@spiritualanarchist8162]

Well I agree with you, but i guess the obvious problem with mutualism is that it doesn't really has a solution with all the creative ways humans tend to screw eachother over. That's why Communism is been added into the Anarcho-Com mix. .To provide some basic structure . ( I'm simplifying to keep the comment short )

[@KarlSnarks]

Personally, while I'm not tied to one ideology in particular (mostly because my understanding of them is still limited), I have a warm heart for all leftist ideologies that are not too authoritarian (Tankies gtfo!) so I would definitely be interested in a diversified post-capitalist civilization.

[@tilllemaignan-durand9375]

As an anarcho communiste, i compleltly approve : We live in a shitty world, at the end of the day we have to be flexible and deal smartly with capitalism and not blindly follow an ideal

[@kx7500]

@@KarlSnarksall leftist ideologies are anti authoritarian. Tankies are right wingers in reality, but with leftist aesthetics.

[@godwinyo5206]

Since you did Proudhon, do one on Max Stiner's egoism, I recommend reading All Things are Nothing to Me the Unique Philosophy of Max Stirner by Jacob Blumenfield.

[@mindthesynapticgap4909]

I agree

[@luisasouza5472]

Definitely the best summary of Stirner's ideas.

[@communistspectre1984]

@Tyler Fox no it rejects "rugged individualism"

[@asurrealistworld4412]

It's a shame Proudhon's ideas aren't as well known as Marx's when he had so much influence on Marx. But Proudhon actually goes even further than Marx in showing the relation government has to economic exploitation.

[@antrim7008]

Read “The Poverty of Philosophy”. Proudhon is influential but nowhere near the likes of Marx or even Bakunin.

[@asurrealistworld4412]

@@antrim7008 I have to admit I don't really care for Proudhon's writing style. Marx's is much better and to the point. I've only read What is Property? but not The Philosophy of Poverty Marx was responding to so I will have to look more at their dialogue.

[@asurrealistworld4412]

@@antrim7008 Also what I mean by Proudhon ( and Bakunin as well) going further than Marx in showing the relation between government and exploitation has to do with their differences defining political power. In the Communist Manifesto Marx defines political power as "the organized power of one class for oppressing another". This definition is fine but doesn't specify the economic class position of those who hold political power and those who don't. For Proudhon and Bakunin political power would be more defined as the organized power of exploiting classes for oppressing exploited classes. Marx gives this impression that political power is just something that can be switched from one class to another but somehow one's class position will remain the same whereas Proudhon and Bakunin would go further in saying that having/acquiring governmental power itself makes/changes one's class position to that of an exploiter. Marx points out that exploitation necessitates political domination but not vice versa. For Proudhon and Bakunin political domination and government always necessitates a system of economic exploitation as well.

[@antrim7008]

@@asurrealistworld4412 Yeah this goes back to the 1st Communist International split and the Bakuninists’ aversion towards the concept of “dictatorship of the proletariat.” It’s a common criticism of Marx from an anarchist view-point that all the dotp would do is simply create a new ruling class.

[@jghifiversveiws8729]

@Erik Boyd As a mutualist I don't see us as having much in common with Marxists, let alone Communists, however, we are in practice opposed to much of the same things I suppose, I just wish they would stop plundering anarchy.

[@msmelanie.]

The beginning of this video really caught my attention. And this has left me wanting to read all of Proudhon. Well done Lewis, fascinating!

[@tigerstyle4505]

The Anarchist Library and a few other sources have most any anarchist writing ya want for free. Just stay away from anything labeled "Primitivism", "anti-civ" and "post-left" lol They don't represent the bulk of the anarchist movement by a stretch and some are downright anti-anarchist and just appropriates the language. Some of the anti-civ and post-left thought do but it's often mixed with a lot that we don't incorporate at all, the Anarchist FAQ has more info on that. Proudhon also later changed his views pretty dramatically later in his life. He was always something of a sexist but he became a full-blown reactionary later on. But his early writings are pretty decent, though I'd also add that Mutualists are a minority within the anarchist movement as well even if it's been influential. Enjoy! ✊👊🖤☮️🏴🥀🌐A///E

[@marcelofernandez743]

@@tigerstyle4505 I have to disagree on that opinion about Proudhon's latest work. The Federative Principle (1863) and The political capacity of the working class (1865) are two of his most relevant works. He died in 1865. There is nothing that could be associated with anything reactionary in those works. Actually The Federative Principle has been quoted various times in this video.

[@ELGatitoRevelde]

kzbin.info/aero/PLygqavJysUHLOfPuzXfUl_ka0nKpxXTEw

[@Andi_andI]

Seriously underrated channel. Refreshing to see Anarchism being discussed on its own merit, and not merely as an extension of the left or the right.

[@kx7500]

It IS an extension of the left to be clear though

[@bobbycutts2111]

THIS is what my high school teachers were afraid of??

[@coolporyg0n]

my high school teacher actually taught about this, it's pretty cool

[@coolporyg0n]

@@diii5358 politics!

[@Itri_Vega]

I think we need fresh ideas (or even good, but previously ignored old ideas) more than ever. This year has shown the limitations and flaws of our current systems with alarming intensity.

[@juanmccoy3066]

for me it's been non stop since 2008. Everyone is so focused on the last couple years and I'm like wake up! It's been fucked for a long time now! Indoctrination is real. Propoganda is strong. Because they convinced a lot of us that the great recession was only a year when I remember us working people suffering between 2008 and 2017 only having a LITTLE relief until covid came along. 3 years is hardly a recovery. I feel like every couple of years something happens in the news that wipes my savings out or leaves me jobless and I have to start over. I'm sick of starting over and forgetting. Aren't you? Maybe u forgot the recession. But don't let them make u forget covid. Don't let them make u forget inflation. Because I promise something else will come along and you will forget and think "oh its just this year" No, it's nearly every damn year. Nearly every damn day. Don't become complacent.

[@ResGestae0]

Returning to an utopian thinking reminds me of Mark Fisher and his writings on lost futures. Maybe through utopian thinking we are able to overcome this nihilism of lost futures.

[@grmpEqweer]

I need to be tucking into Mark Fisher. Screw my tiny attention span, must have discipline!

[@ResGestae0]

@@grmpEqweer seriously, Capitalist Realism is such a tiny book! It's packed with info, but it really is tiny, and if you can focus on it, it is not as difficult as some of my friends have found it. You just need to focus. MF even has a chapter in this book discussing the issues with attention we are all facing nowadays.

[@grmpEqweer]

@@ResGestae0 My attention issues are a bit different than most, but okay.

[@lukacule3367]

I'm so happy to hear you can do this full time! You have single-handedly reignited my love for philosophy. I enjoy your videos very much and I look forward to seeing this channel grow in the future :)

[@thesensiblesocialist]

Mutualism: the ideal market system

[@Sazi_de_Afrikan]

Next, Stirner. Then, Bakunin (including Feuerbach's and Hegel's influence)

[@Tychoxi]

and climax with kropotkin

[@sirherbert6953]

I always Klimax with Kropotkin 😌

[@hairyshoulders5866]

Lmao, you are not ordering off a menu. Pipe down.

[@Sazi_de_Afrikan]

@@hairyshoulders5866 I just did though big fella

[@matecoolman000]

Would be marvelous if you did a video on the Ukrainian Revolutionary anarchist Nestor Makhno who established the only successful anarchist state to date ! would be interesting to explore his thought and action in relation to intellectual history and the combination between anarchism and nationalism !

[@theEndermanMGS]

It’s arguable how successful the Free Territory was, and there have been a handful of other experiments in CNT-FAI controlled regions of the Spanish Civil War and in the Korean People’s Association in Manchuria, which were arguably more successful in establishing societies according to anarchist ideals than the Free Territory was. Sadly, all collapsed to external forces within a couple of years of their respective establishment, so it is really difficult to judge how successful each would have been at achieving the goal of a libertarian form of socialism. If you are interested in other anarchist adjacent systems, you also have the Zapatista municipalities and Rojava, both of which exist today and have survived longer than previous libertarian socialist experiments.

[@G.Bfit.93]

@@theEndermanMGS Korean People's Association in Manchuria lives on in the DPRK. Juche is based in synthesizing their left libertarianism with scientific socialism. Anarchism isn't a viable system. It's nice philosophy in a vacuum, but not practical in the real world. The DPRK does hold true to it's libertarian roots, the Taeon Work System and commune system being very bottom-up democratic. There is a personality cult around the Kim family, but they don't have and sort of legal/hereditary privilege. It's a hangover from their feudal peasant culture.

[@angelamossucco2190]

Thanks for this reference!

[@edwinrollins142]

Personally, I think that Proudhon's conception of "communism", and resulting aversion to it, was heavily circumscribed by a certain limited number of communist currents that were prominent in his time, namely those revolving around figures like Blanqui and Marx. Some of his issues with communism were, imo, tho, resolved with later libertarian/anarchist communist theorists like Dejaqcue, Cafiero, Kropotkin, etc.

[@shenone3285]

Thank you for name dropping libertarian socialist theorists my reading list is getting so long

[@shenone3285]

​@socialism is slavery Yes everyone knows that under communism one class of people are forced to work for another disproportionately represented class without any compensation. I thought mutualism would really appeal to ancaps though. I thought the main reason ancaps supported "libertarian" capitalism was because of the whole libertarian part. Would you support anarco communism / libertarian socialism as apposed to state / authoritarian socialism? I think that any form of anarchism will inherently trend more towards collectivism anyways. Since human being are social creatures we're just more disposed to acting collaboratively.

[@counterfeit1148]

@@shenone3285 I would prefer anarcho-communism over state communism or even capitalism

[@shenone3285]

@@counterfeit1148 Me too

[@DanteG1234]

Kropotkin gang

[@KentWoodsMusic]

Great video. Thank you for compiling this info and making it so palatable for those of us that hadn't read any of Proudhon's work.

[@willschnack]

This was a great introductory video for Proudhon.

[@johnarbuckle2619]

Hope you get bigger and bigger over time, you deserve it.

[@viacheslavkyrylov2657]

One of those videos i saw 4 times in the row Thank You so much

[@Zineas]

I know you answered it shortly earlier. But since you covered Proudhon indepht now, I would really love to see an indepht comparison between Rawls and Proudhon. Thank you for the quality content

[@Cybernaut551]

I appreciate Mutualism, I previously didn't understand it until now. Thank you!

[@G.Bfit.93]

This man is lying to you. This is a deceptive and gross misrepresentation of Proudhon. He was a right-libertarian. A voluntarist. Here are resources: "Neither heredity, nor election, nor universal suffrage, nor the excellence of the sovereign, nor the consecration of religion and of time, can make royalty legitimate. Whatever form it takes, - monarchic, oligarchic, or democratic, - royalty, or the government of man by man, is illegitimate and absurd." - What is Property? "There is property and property, - the one good, the other bad. Now, as it is proper to call different things by different names, if we keep the name “property” for the former, we must call the latter robbery, rapine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we reserve the name “property” for the latter, we must designate the former by the term possession, or some other equivalent; otherwise we should be troubled with an unpleasant synonymy." - What is property? "M. Blanqui acknowledges that property is abused in many harmful ways; I call property the sum these abuses exclusively. To each of us property seems a polygon whose angles need knocking off; but, the operation performed, M. Blanqui maintains that the figure will still be a polygon (an hypothesis admitted in mathematics, although not proven), while I consider that this figure will be a circle. Honest people can at least understand one another." - What is property? "In my first memoirs, attacking the established order at the front, I said, for example: Property is theft! It was a matter of protesting, so to speak in relief the nothingness of our institutions. I was not then occupied with anything else. Also, in the memoir in which I demonstrated, by A plus B, this stunning proposition, I had taken care to protest against any communist conclusion." - Confessions of a revolutionary. "I protest that in criticizing property, or rather the whole mass of institutions of which property is the pivot, I have never intended either to attack individual rights, based upon existing laws, or to contest the legitimacy of acquired pos. sessions, or to demand an arbitrary division of goods, or to place any obstacle to the free and regular acquisition, by sale and exchange, of property, or even to forbid or suppress, by sovereign degree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose." - The solution of the social problem. When Proudhon said, "property is theft" he was talking about state sanctioned property especially of aristocratic nature. He supported private ownership of the means of production and free markets with NO restrictions. He was basically an ancap.

[@Yablochka19]

Excellent breakdown! It is exactly this kind of deep dive into anarchist thought we need these days.

[@maddog.mcewan]

EXTREMELY well delivered !!! Wish I could explain as clearly as you did here ... WELL DONE

[@timquigley986]

Congrats on going full time. You've put in the work and it shows

[@juanmccoy3066]

I've always been afraid to dig the mutualism hole but now I'm glad I did. Lots of ancaps are coming here and I'm the latest. And Im I'm old school ancap. I've been on that bandwagon forever. BUT I'm a voluntaryist before that. And first and foremost I recognize my station, as a worker. If I can consent voluntarily to a system like mutualism. I don't see a problem with that and i think it's highly desirable for proletarians like me who want anarchy but who don't want what is either feudalism in disguise (ancap) or fucking tanky statism (Marxist leninist communism) I've always liked Proudhon and he was my induction into base anarchy. But I never dug that hole into mutualism itself. I finally did. And class consciousness is real. I do like credit unions, I believe in them a LOT and had no idea they came from mutualism. My family is big on labor unions and I hated them but then realized I don't hate the concept I hate what they've become in MY generation. These ideas in and of themselves are good ideas. But the hard leftists who are really just liberals cosplaying as revolutionaries bring all these other ideas in that are unnecessary unnecessary to the topics of philosophy and economics. Like this whole woke ideology with its militant political correctness. Leninists love that horse shit and I'm not on that train. But I do like the idea of reforming the system rather than relying on revolution as a first resort and then trying to force communism OR basically making people kings because they have the first rights to something, rights they created under liberalism which I don't believe in. Morality is objective and changes anyway. I don't believe in objective morality. So long as the individual is free and not forced to take part in a system I'm all for it. I have a feeling 99% of the lone wolves out there won't actually be lone wolves, hence why they aren't now. It's very rare. But as long as their ability to opt out is recognized I say let's build the society we want. But the people who want to opt out need to opt fully out. We can't carry their weight anymore.

[@virtualselfie6899]

Great video. Nice emphasis on anarchism as inner direction but how to cohere everyone's individual inner direction, at same time? Exegesis requires praxis philosophy 🔧 for the libertarianism that has run amok in USA.

[@josipmickovic2572]

Good man for doing these videos, I'm revisiting my favorite writers after highschool

[@comradefreedom8275]

I would love to see you do videos on people like Goldman, Kropotkin, Bakunin and Stirner. Do you intend on doing any videos of the sort?

[@bogomilpeshev4657]

Absolutely brilliant explanation!

[@Ynainah]

I came here after watching 'A Man of Action'. Great discourse.

[@MKSpeakz]

I resonate the most with this “flavor” of anarchy. Makes the most sense.

[@sanjushah3061]

This writer was loved and visited Leo Tolstoy who shared many of his opinions on Anarchy and Christian values being one and the same and the only real solution to a Golden age of the Kingdom of heaven coming to Earth

[@JL-ol8zg]

Would expertise not be considered when determining value? Or is that factored into what is considered labor? What of the man who can make nails the fastest? Would he not slow down his work so as to make his nails more valuable? And what of quality? If a man produces a nail that breaks twice as fast compared to his neighbors nails should they be worth the same?

[@beatboy6690]

well yes because with in the labour theory of value it states that value should not be dictated by the literal amount of labour but by the average. This creates a meritocracy for those who could create products fastest, as they would be selling their products at the same value dictated by the average amount of labour time with the ability to produce products faster thus earning more currency I also believe that the market aspect of mutualism will sort out the second aspect of expertise as, if nails are created shoddily less people will buy them and since the worker has direct access to the fruits of their labour they will make less money. This doesn't occur in capitalism as most workers are on wages meaning the worker actually has an incentive to do the bare minimum as doing the best work they have ever done would only be rewarded with the same shoddy paycheck that they received after creating nails which broke after 3 days.

[@JL-ol8zg]

@@beatboy6690 What if nail seller traveled, sold his cheap nails only to new customers who had no way of knowing the quality, the time put into them. It seems rather difficult to imagine this type of system in practice. It also seems outside of some complicated monitoring system or a completely honest citizenry, impractical to estimate time others put into a product or service. How would fast but undesirable jobs be captured in this style of market? What if these jobs required high amounts of skill? Would they not simply be left undone without market forces? I'm the furthest thing from a capitalist, I really can not see the practicality in this system outside of a single small tribe though.

[@beatboy6690]

@@JL-ol8zg well travelling to new buyers costs money does it not you have to pay for fuel at the very least either way you slice it you lose money if you dont make good nails the only way i believe this system could be undermined is through advertising which could be heavily regulated or even cut out entirely

[@JL-ol8zg]

@@beatboy6690 Does traveling cost more? Food trucks are cheaper to operate than restaurants.

[@beatboy6690]

@@JL-ol8zg well yes but in a food truck everything is made right there on the spot you don't have to travel to and from the kitchen in a food truck

[@theschooloflife8303]

an excellent prief intro to Proudhun's moral philosophy .. Brilliant .

[@skeletontoes7692]

So glad someone is mentioning Mutualism. Even if I am super late.

[@clarke4552]

It's a good time for this video. Property is Theft!

[@counterfeit1148]

I disagree

[@bigbillhaywood1415]

*private property

[@droptherapy2085]

@@bigbillhaywood1415 I feel like that's implied in the phrase but yeah

[@bigbillhaywood1415]

@@droptherapy2085 i just don't want some leftist curious person coming here and freaking out lol.

[@droptherapy2085]

@@bigbillhaywood1415 fair

[@gadhviviraj9172]

QUESTION: How is Innovation communal? Great Video!

[@enfercesttout]

it accumulates beyond generations and individuals.

[@gadhviviraj9172]

@@enfercesttout Fair enough, thank you mate.

[@saloniaurora]

"earning a living" is a myth. We all deserve right to property and food. That's the bare minimum necessary for one to live the good life.

[@counterfeit1148]

Well it isn't a myth, you literally have to do that currently

[@TheRenegade...]

@@counterfeit1148 It's a myth because living is earned by being born

[@chesterg.791]

That view is anti-science and naive. Nature is much crueler than that. Where is your right to food and shelter if you're the last person on earth? You have to "earn" your survival.

[@TheRenegade...]

@@chesterg.791 We live in society, not nature.

[@chesterg.791]

@@TheRenegade... Society is an aspect of nature. Being social creatures does not change the reality of our environment.

[@LogicGated]

Proudhon needs some more recognition on the left.

[@beccarosex]

Brilliant video, thank you for helping me learn about these interesting concepts! New subscriber 😄💙

[@tormunnvii3317]

Read; "Parecon - Michael Albert" for a more modern vision of this sort of society.

[@a.e.m.1452]

Love this topic

[@stephaniegeorge6444]

Handsome dude tickling me brain button. Thank you🎩

[@TheLeksilijum]

I LOVE THIS CHANNEL! This makes me believe we need to cancel privacy. Also men talk to much and women are never present in Thinking unfortunately. Most of the philosophy channels never talk about women's opinions. But now I sound like a feminist (god forbid with all the TERFs around huh) :3 But on the mutualism, I really don't know (a reluctant communist anarchist). It sounds amazing in theory but "Do to others as you wish to be done to yourself" is something that people REALLY don't want to do. I mean imagine someone like me who is constntly splaining things to people. I'd feel petrified by that much splaining. Also what about extremely heterogeneous groups... like I'm a migrant in France, I'm never going to have people agree with my cultural norms, they're going to outvote me every time. And I can't even imagine an introvert spending more than 10 minutes with my activist friends, they'd probably have a panic attack and think we're oversharing all the time... Also contracts are a part of "law of obligations" And just to give an example for a debate let's assess what we would do if a (white) woman in distress called us to save her from a (black) man who was filming her (without her consent, AND because she didn't have a leash on her dog) while she was all alone in a park with her dog.

[@Seamonkey555]

From my INCREDIBLY limited understanding it would go to a tribunal of neighbors.

[@JubileeCreatesSomethingAmazing]

For labor: If it costs you 100 hours to put together this video but someone can put together a equally informative one with with the same run time in 25 hours are you "paid" for the time you put in overall or the outcome? Why would you be paid more for taking longer and why would they be paid more for something which took them less time? Or is it based on the number of people who watch and if they like it (wait is KZbin mutalist?)

[@themushroom2130]

you cannot calculate informativeness objectively. also, it would depend if the people took the same amount of time to shoot and edit with the same amount of skill and same tools (cameras, pc for editing, video editing software, audio editing software, mics, etc)

[@soultookie]

Liked and agreed with the comments at the end of the video!

[@Theorychad99]

I love the new green screen! How much dit it cost?

[@Anonymous-vd5yt]

Brilliant topic

[@NewtNuke]

Another great video, thanks.

[@kempilein]

interesting thoughts and nice video man!

[@chrisjamel8461]

if money gives purchasing power to efficiency, that is if people always want to spend less people will always tend to get less but if people want to spend more eventually they will only get more money. But if people naturally value hard and quality work without money we can change the behavior of the economy without the distortion of market value. I think we tend to forget money behaves.

[@juanmccoy3066]

See to me this sounds a lot like voluntaryism but with respect and meritocracy between workers taking center stage.

[@arthurhewes7081]

This is very informative, but massively undermined buy the many ad's in wierd places.

[@Dante-sz3io]

Hi, for a school project I’m writing a report about Proudhon. I have trouble finding sources, because English is not my first language and all websites I’ve visited are hard for me to read. Do you have some tips on finding information on the internet?

[@airforcemax]

*¡pondering and wondering at 10:56 am Pacific Daylight Savings Time on Wednesday, 16 March 2022 Common Era or CE formerly known as Ano Domini or AD!*

[@krishnansrinivasan830]

Awesome & Thanks :)

[@JubileeCreatesSomethingAmazing]

How about now when labor can be done by robots but innovation comes from human minds (at least for now)?

[@aunttifa6794]

🎯

[@SeanOCallaghan0106]

In anarchist society how can be sure to preserve inalienable rights if there are no laws? There are rules tho, how would them be decided/established?

[@chrisjamel8461]

I wonder how labor theory value distorts supply and demand for there are a great many products which have high and quality labor that under market value would be cheap. also some of the products that employ the most might become relatively more expensive.

[@markbaker4425]

Ltv isnt about price

[@TheYarcob]

Is there and English translation of 'Du principe de l'art?'

[@pixelated_dinosaur]

Have you tried the Invisible Committee? they are brilliant, a vanguard

[@CodeBonYT]

Look at all the order in U.S. cities when they stop enforcing crime. Does the honestly and consideration necessary for peace manifest or no?

[@SeanOCallaghan0106]

Who was the first thinker who introduced the word communism? I thought they ware marx and engels in 1848 but "what is property was published in 1840 and indeed Proudhon mentioned communism.

[@antioedipus72]

3:22 that's actually an utilitarian moral law

[@trippyyoke]

Genesis 3:22 is also the most interesting verse in the Bible. Maybe the only one that describes our true nature. I highly recommend anyone that sees this to google it.

[@zakkattakkable]

The one question i have for anarchist, How do you feel about pedophilia? should they be allowed to to value their individual self interest over the collective? How do feel about a collective looking through the internet and stopping pedos from sharing abusive material? Should the collective protect the most vulnerable?

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

If your defining moral law as purely an enlightened self intrest, that sounds rather like the abscence of morality, not it's presence. For morality to mean anything it must be distinct from self intrest.

[@lucax2344]

.mmmh a "moral low" that drives the humankind it sounds to me pretty dangerous, but thank you for this video.

[@b1odome]

Marx would be critical of that kind of characterisation of communism.

[@Bojoschannel]

Well he was, he even wrote a whole work critiquing Proudhon (the poverty of philosophy)

[@qriofficial1769]

so it's basically just communal egoism?

[@whomanism]

according to proudhon i would say that an anarchist only obeys to the law of necessity.it is the only concept to which everybody has to give respect.

[@athko]

Stirner is next i hope!

[@huffrya0]

This shit is awesome!

[@wuhaninstituteofvirology]

innovation is communal? how? only the brightest/most creative thinkers & inventors, who have time/resources to incubate them, will come up with the new big ideas that can innovate, improve, & transform society with new technology - then actually putting those ideas into practice with functioning prototypes & inventions, not to mention mass producing & marketing them, is another feat to achieve...patents on innovations claim the ideas for the inventors to personally benefit from, or sell as intellectual property (not to be shared communally)

[@domm1341]

I liked this but “Imagine all the people…” is for the birds.

[@stateofthenihil8352]

Main fallacies. (TL;DR): Assumes reasoning provides grounding for beliefs and actions. Ignores the assumption of selfishness. Ignores that social consequences are socially constructed. Assumes that reasoning and authority are mutually exclusive. Ignores that reasoning actually depends on authority. Ignores that politics, at base, is a game of power. He assumes that reason tells us to do anything. Reason does not provide a basis for any behavior or any belief, it strips them away due to skepticism; you can always question that premise, and any argument to that premise will create new premises in need of justification. He fails to recognize the actual impetus for behavior that our reasoning presupposes: selfishness. He explicitly states that we don't murder or steal because of the social consequences, yet he fails to recognize that this assumes selfishness. We don't steal because the social consequences ensure that we will suffer accordingly. It is fundamentally self-focused. Bafflingly, according to Proudhon, not stealing because you will be ostracized indicates that you care about moral law. At the same time, actually stealing is bad and selfish. This assumes that moral law exists, when it is simply selfishness, and it implicitly assumes that selfishness implies hurting others for personal gain. This is false. You can be nice for selfish reasons (as I mentioned earlier). He then creates a false dichotomy between authority and reason, suggesting that man can rely on reason to behave morally, and that blind adherence to authority should be thrown out. People using reason (while presupposing selfishness) to engage in pro-social behaviors actually depends on authority. Remember, when people use reason, they are rationalizing that there will be social consequences to a given behavior. But whether there are social consequences depends on how the power structures of a given society are oriented. For example, a person will reason that they should not kill a man because they know they will go to jail. Of course, they will only go to jail is there is a state. And, historically, there are countless examples of societal structures not ensuring consequences for murder and other behaviors, at least for everyone. And sure enough, these behaviors are rampant among those not subject to authority. In other words, even if you accept this idea that people are rational enough to behave such that they avoid the social consequences, this ignores the fact that what social consequences you receive is . . . well . . . a social construct. The entire point of politics is determining how we ought to orient the various power structures that make up a society. Do you want there to be social consequences to coming out as gay? Do you want there to be social consequences to coming out as a bigot? How you answer these questions determine how you want to orient these power structures. Ultimately, if you control these power structures, then you control what social consequences people receive; if you control what the social consequences are, then you control what people do. Politics is ultimately about power, in all its forms. And a brief caveat, the power structures I am referring to are: the state, businesses, the academy, the media, entertainment, and simple social norms, all of which are influenced by culture (the beliefs and attitudes that people hold). These all influence behavior by ensuring social consequences (placing incentives on people).

[@marcelofernandez743]

You cannot seriously criticise Proudhon concept of Justice based on a bad interpretation of what is said in the video. In other words, you need, at the very least, a basic understanding of an author before you spit your rants. Excuse me, but you cant blithely explain that Proudhon "ignores that social consequences are socially constructed". What are you talking about? The whole work of Proudhon is based on the premise that justice, law, moral, human behaviour, etc are socially constructed. There is a reason why he is considered to be the forefather of Sociology by some. And when you actually read Proudhon and Durkheim you understand why. The same with "ignores that politics is a game of power". You are teaching that to Proudhon from your laptop? He was imprisoned several times, banned, expatriated, censured, he took part in the 1848 revolution, was probably the most important political activist of his period and so on, have a look at "Confessions of a revolutionary" or even wikipedia. "ignores the assumption of selfishness" and the rest of these supposed "phallacies". Its just a bunch of wrong assumptions on your part. Same with the "false dichotomy authority-reason", thats completely wrong. The dichotomy in Proudhon is "authority-freedom", and this is just very frickin basic Proudhon that I am explaining to you. Cheers!

[@stateofthenihil8352]

​@@marcelofernandez743 "You cannot seriously criticise . . . before you spit your rants" This is gatekeeping. If you don't think I can criticize someone's video on Proudhon, then that negates the utility of having the video at all. Why don't you tell Then & Now that he should delete his channel, given that these videos are useless and don't actually educate people on the philosophers in question? Or do they? If they do actually explain their ideas well, then my criticisms are legitimate. Either way, I am critiquing a video of Proudhon. I can recognize that secondary sources have limitations. "Excuse me, but you cant blithely . . . and Durkheim you understand why." He does ignore it. Unfortunately, paying lip service to an idea doesn't mean you actually believe it. You need to actually incorporate the idea into your theories and understand the logical consequences. If social consequences are socially constructed, then that shows that people's choices when they use reason are not clear in any way. If you want to rebut my criticism, they you are going to have to show how Proudhon's argument takes this into account. Also, if justice is a social construct, then that begs the question of why justice should be followed. The very notion that justice is desirable would be arbitrary. Keep in mind that you have to make a distinction between justice as an ideal and justice as an instantiation of an ideal. No one denies that the latter is socially constructed. The former (if it exists) cannot be socially constructed, because that undermines the authority of any declaration that a given thing is just. "The same with "ignores that politics . . . revolutionary" or even wikipedia." None of this has to do with Proudhon's theory, as it is articulated in the video. As I said before, paying lip service to an idea is not good enough. Most importantly, I am arguing that politics is inherently a game of power. Proudhon suggests that people can use reason to bring about justice, thus escaping institutions based in power and violence, like the state. I am suggesting that even if we use reason (which we often don't) then we still require institutions like the state. ""ignores the assumption of . . . your part." And these are assertions on your part. You can't accept the assumptions you're making because you've convinced yourself that selfishness is unjust/evil. Sorry, but when people use reason to tell themselves that they ought to behave in a certain way, because there will be consequences, then that assumes selfishness. Why else would they care about suffering the consequences, in the first place? "Same with the "false dichotomy . . . explaining to you. Cheers!" Freedom to do what? Be irrational? Eat poop? Bark like a dog? Or, to use reason to increase one's understanding of justice? Proudhon thinks that people can use reason to understand justice, and that this is in opposition to the state, which is blind deference to authority. I showed that reason alone does not suggest that we believe anything, or do anything. You must must make an assumption; any reasoning that you do will come from that assumption. Since avoiding social consequences is part of that reasoning, Proudhon is assuming self interest; he is assuming that people will behave in their rational self-interest. Sorry I offended you by questioning Proudhon, Peace Be Upon Him. I get that most people can't handle challenges to their dogma.

[@marcelofernandez743]

@@stateofthenihil8352 There is no dogma in anarchism, that's why Bakunin criticised Proudhon and build upon him, and Kropotkin did the same and so on, till contemporary writers. This video is the best on YT about Proudhon, at the same time you can not seriously considere this a "secondary source". Secondary source is a book about Proudhon or an in-depth article, at least. To criticise Proudhon at the level you intend to, you have to read primary and secondary source, understand the author (even if you do not agree) and present your critique. If you read Proudhon we could debate about him, but we can not seriously debate the dichotomy between "authority and reason" or if Proudhon does not know that politics if a game of power. All of that, I tell you again, is absurd. I'm not going to bore everyone and debate each one of these silly points. But I will address just one point regarding the politics issue. An example of how wrong you are in your assumptions: I quote "Politics is war, because of its essence, because of its laws and because of its institutions" (Proudhon-1861). Power struggles are addressed and included in his system. Its all over the "Federative principle" (1863) for example. Regarding the matter of justice and reason, I found your observations interesting. The rest of them are just bollocks. Just straw man you are building on assumptions base on a YT. Nothing interesting for anyone. Or a waste of time for everyone if you like. But , again, your observations on justice and reason, I take them with interest. To analyze Proudhon's concept of justice and reason in depth you have to read "Justice in the revolution and the church". Otherwise it is not possible. It is not possible to address this issue based on this video, are you able to understand this? Have you read the book? I am sure you have not because you have proved again and again that you dont know even any frickin basic concept about Proudhon (for instance, you intend to object philosophical issues on Proudhon and next you talk about "contradiction between authority-reason"). The problem with this is work is that it has not been translated into english or into spanish. It's the only major work of Proudhon I have not read in its entirety, Just some random parts translated and secondary sources. Anyway, what I can tell you from what I understood is that reason does not play such a big role as you assume and that he tries hard to define freedom and also takes into account self-interest. He does not deny self-interest at all. I do not know if you are honest or you trolling but at least this will be helpful for anyone who is interested in understanding the thinking of Proudhon. That of course should not be taken as a dogma and Proudhon would be the first to tell you that. Regarding justice, Proudhon does not consider that we follow it based only in rational thinking. It is more of a basic element of society. And society is a natural thing. Human is a social animal. He also shows that any revolution looks for justice (do not confuse please with idolizing revolution, he does not at all). This is a pretty basic explanation with a lot of shortcomings but at least it can point you in the right direction, even if your aim is to find the flaws on Proudhon's theory, which of course exists, like with any author

[@azliaheaven]

"dogma in anarchy" guauuuuuu you really broke the bar

[@stateofthenihil8352]

@@marcelofernandez743 "There is no dogma in . . . till contemporary writers." Internal discussion/critique does not refute the notion of dogma. There can be common assumptions taken for granted. This is why religions can have internal divisions and disagreements despite also having common dogma. "This video is the best . . . article, at least." Why? "To criticise Proudhon at the . . . and present your critique." This is arbitrary. I'll criticize the ideas presented. I'm not completely dismissing him based on only this video. My positions can and will change as new ideas come forward. "I'm not going to bore everyone . . . "Federative principle" (1863) for example. " This misses the ultimate point I was trying to make. My claim that politics is ultimately about power was at the backend of arguing that even in the case of man using reason to govern their choices in life, you aren't escaping institutions, like the state, which place incentives on people so they reason to particular behaviors. Showing that Proudhon acknowledges this in the abstract, or in other particular ways, does not respond to my point. "But , again, your observations . . . you able to understand this?" This is false. You are failing to make a distinction between signifiers and signified. What matters, ultimately, are the signifieds (concepts, themselves), which can be communicated in a variety of different ways. That said, I'll put the essay on my reading list. Idk when I'll get to it. Not in time for this discussion, at least. "The problem with this is . . . first to tell you that. " I'll keep these objections in mind. My claims about the video, and the concepts articulated in the video, stand, however.

[@quatele]

I thought you were describing what I normally call capitalism for about 90% of the video, until you got to the labor theory of value at about the final two minutes. And, that’s the part that seems unjustified. First, value is transitive and requires a valuer, and everyone has different values. Second, value includes many inputs, not just labor. Third, even if value only includes labor, not all labor is equal.

[@datingconfiedenceessentials]

Do one on julius evola

[@gabitheancient7664]

btw, what definition of communism was he using? cus at least the recent definition is a stateless, classless, moneyless society with common property of the means of producton

[@G.Bfit.93]

He was talking of a society in which the masses exercise control over a social system where all property is owned in common, democratically run to meet the demands of society.

[@G.Bfit.93]

This video is a deceptive and gross misrepresentation of Proudhon. He was a right-libertarian. A voluntarist. Here are resources: "Neither heredity, nor election, nor universal suffrage, nor the excellence of the sovereign, nor the consecration of religion and of time, can make royalty legitimate. Whatever form it takes, - monarchic, oligarchic, or democratic, - royalty, or the government of man by man, is illegitimate and absurd." - What is Property? "There is property and property, - the one good, the other bad. Now, as it is proper to call different things by different names, if we keep the name “property” for the former, we must call the latter robbery, rapine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we reserve the name “property” for the latter, we must designate the former by the term possession, or some other equivalent; otherwise we should be troubled with an unpleasant synonymy." - What is property? "M. Blanqui acknowledges that property is abused in many harmful ways; I call property the sum these abuses exclusively. To each of us property seems a polygon whose angles need knocking off; but, the operation performed, M. Blanqui maintains that the figure will still be a polygon (an hypothesis admitted in mathematics, although not proven), while I consider that this figure will be a circle. Honest people can at least understand one another." - What is property? "In my first memoirs, attacking the established order at the front, I said, for example: Property is theft! It was a matter of protesting, so to speak in relief the nothingness of our institutions. I was not then occupied with anything else. Also, in the memoir in which I demonstrated, by A plus B, this stunning proposition, I had taken care to protest against any communist conclusion." - Confessions of a revolutionary. "I protest that in criticizing property, or rather the whole mass of institutions of which property is the pivot, I have never intended either to attack individual rights, based upon existing laws, or to contest the legitimacy of acquired pos. sessions, or to demand an arbitrary division of goods, or to place any obstacle to the free and regular acquisition, by sale and exchange, of property, or even to forbid or suppress, by sovereign degree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose." - The solution of the social problem. When Proudhon said, "property is theft" he was talking about state sanctioned property especially of aristocratic nature. He supported private ownership of the means of production and free markets with NO restrictions. He was basically an ancap.

[@gabitheancient7664]

@@G.Bfit.93 besides the last 2, I don't get the problem of the quotes

[@gabitheancient7664]

@@G.Bfit.93 also I have no idea where did you got the idea that he was talking about state sanctioned property

[@gabitheancient7664]

@@G.Bfit.93 and you're wrong, here is my source: "I have accomplished my task; property is conquered, never again to arise. Wherever this work is read and discussed, there will be deposited the germ of death to property; there, sooner or later, privilege and servitude will disappear, and the despotism of will will give place to the reign of reason. What sophisms, indeed, what prejudices (however obstinate) can stand before the simplicity of the following propositions: - I. Individual possession[39] is the condition of social life; five thousand years of property demonstrate it. Property is the suicide of society. Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress property while maintaining possession, and, by this simple modification of the principle, you will revolutionize law, government, economy, and institutions; you will drive evil from the face of the earth. II. All having an equal right of occupancy, possession varies with the number of possessors; property cannot establish itself. III. The effect of labor being the same for all, property is lost in the common prosperity. IV. All human labor being the result of collective force, all property becomes, in consequence, collective and unitary. To speak more exactly, labor destroys property. V. Every capacity for labor being, like every instrument of labor, an accumulated capital, and a collective property, inequality of wages and fortunes (on the ground of inequality of capacities) is, therefore, injustice and robbery. VI. The necessary conditions of commerce are the liberty of the contracting parties and the equivalence of the products exchanged. Now, value being expressed by the amount of time and outlay which each product costs, and liberty being inviolable, the wages of laborers (like their rights and duties) should be equal. VII. Products are bought only by products. Now, the condition of all exchange being equivalence of products, profit is impossible and unjust. Observe this elementary principle of economy, and pauperism, luxury, oppression, vice, crime, and hunger will disappear from our midst. VIII. Men are associated by the physical and mathematical law of production, before they are voluntarily associated by choice. Therefore, equality of conditions is demanded by justice; that is, by strict social law: esteem, friendship, gratitude, admiration, all fall within the domain of equitable or proportional law only. IX. Free association, liberty - whose sole function is to maintain equality in the means of production and equivalence in exchanges - is the only possible, the only just, the only true form of society. X. Politics is the science of liberty. The government of man by man (under whatever name it be disguised) is oppression. Society finds its highest perfection in the union of order with anarchy." -what is property

[@emanooo813]

9:10 that is so so silly... did he really say this?

[@TheJayman213]

Should have noted that communism doesn't actually mean any of the things Proudhon thinks it means.

[@LastThankG0DfreeAtLast]

Sorry but just the Brit accent reminded me of the anarchy syndicate russell Brand

[@kuroazrem5376]

Innovation is rarely communal. Usually it comes from commited individuals with new ideas. I think that was one of Proudhon's few conceptual failures.

[@azliaheaven]

nah, it acumaletes throw the work of the community beyond generations and contributions of other individuals, that's the source that allows a single individual to put the pieces together, with the difference that here the success will be fairly distributed and not just centralized and idolized to a sigle being

[@benwherlock9869]

*Labour.

[@G.Bfit.93]

This is a deceptive and gross misrepresentation of Proudhon. He was a right-libertarian. A voluntarist. Here are resources: "Neither heredity, nor election, nor universal suffrage, nor the excellence of the sovereign, nor the consecration of religion and of time, can make royalty legitimate. Whatever form it takes, - monarchic, oligarchic, or democratic, - royalty, or the government of man by man, is illegitimate and absurd." - What is Property? "There is property and property, - the one good, the other bad. Now, as it is proper to call different things by different names, if we keep the name “property” for the former, we must call the latter robbery, rapine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we reserve the name “property” for the latter, we must designate the former by the term possession, or some other equivalent; otherwise we should be troubled with an unpleasant synonymy." - What is property? "M. Blanqui acknowledges that property is abused in many harmful ways; I call property the sum these abuses exclusively. To each of us property seems a polygon whose angles need knocking off; but, the operation performed, M. Blanqui maintains that the figure will still be a polygon (an hypothesis admitted in mathematics, although not proven), while I consider that this figure will be a circle. Honest people can at least understand one another." - What is property? "In my first memoirs, attacking the established order at the front, I said, for example: Property is theft! It was a matter of protesting, so to speak in relief the nothingness of our institutions. I was not then occupied with anything else. Also, in the memoir in which I demonstrated, by A plus B, this stunning proposition, I had taken care to protest against any communist conclusion." - Confessions of a revolutionary. "I protest that in criticizing property, or rather the whole mass of institutions of which property is the pivot, I have never intended either to attack individual rights, based upon existing laws, or to contest the legitimacy of acquired pos. sessions, or to demand an arbitrary division of goods, or to place any obstacle to the free and regular acquisition, by sale and exchange, of property, or even to forbid or suppress, by sovereign degree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose." - The solution of the social problem. When Proudhon said, "property is theft" he was talking about state sanctioned property especially of aristocratic nature. He supported private ownership of the means of production and free markets with NO restrictions. He was basically an ancap.

[@neatcool4770]

I came up with my Decentralized Collectivist Utopian system in 2001 and set about getting the money to build an example of it to show people the way through a book and videos on it...I never got the money to do that. I plan on just writing the book on it and hoping people can self-organize according to the book. It is very Eden like, back to nature, but still technically advanced, green technologically advanced Collectivism. I believe in contracts instead of money or even labor vouchers, you get a decent life if you fulfill your contracts and if you don't you will get less contracts, it's all about the trust between others. Proudhon is very close to how I think, but he doesn't have the advantage of seeing what came after his writings. One thing is for sure, the Marxist radicals that like Lenin and Mao will be the death of us, they want to put us under even worse control than the Capitalists they want to replace. Critical Race Theory is not Utopian, it can't coexist with mutualism since it seeks inequal treatment of whites for example. There are tons of ideas from the far-Left that are absolutely crazy and most likely injected into our collective thinking by evil sinister people. I find most Leftists hard to talk to and reason with, they are just some woke revolutionary trying to take down the whitey and western civilization, absolute whackos. Instead of forming a community they build and own collectively, the radicals seize areas of a city and set up a CHAZ and they have no idea how to grow food, clean water, build shelter, etc, etc. CHAZistanis are like the worst examples of Anarcho thinking, just a pack of ignorant criminals, not anybody I would build a society from scratch with. Anarchists have to be smarter and more responsible than all the other people, because they have to self-govern.

[@L154N4LG4IB]

Sounds interesting.

[@themushroom2130]

can you send a document or a reply with a brief summary of what you theorized? i would love to hear that

[@edwinrollins142]

In no way, shape, or form does Critical Race Theory advocate for "inequal treatment of whites". That's just an ignorant right-wing talking point. As for the *CHOP, it was never intended to be any kind of self-sufficient community, but was instead just a temporary occupation for the pupose of trying to put pressure on the government to enact reforms. In this way it was similar to a workplace occupation, or when students occupy a school administration building. Also calling the CHOP occupiers as "just a pack of ignorant criminals" is a pretty rank charicature.

[@neatcool4770]

@@edwinrollins142 Sure...whatever you say

[@neatcool4770]

@@themushroom2130 I'm writing the book right now

[@TheGerogero]

Labor theory of value is fail and utopia is already here; the highest good is to grow in wisdom and the world is a place that constantly reflects the consequences of our choices.

[@mylesjeffers6148]

I don't see how anyone can make the leap from capitalism straight to anarchism. It would need a total restructuring of the human psyche, which is possible based on a materialist understanding of "human nature", but you'd need a long long time and it would need overseeing (enforcing?) by something like a state. Communism acknowledges this, in that it is something to strive towards. A real life example being Cuba, who in 2019 amended their constitution to commit to building towards communism. But to me, something resembling anarchism is a final stage of organised society after this overseen building process is complete (if it ever can be complete) and the state naturally dissolves. Can any Anarchist tell me how they get from capitalism to anarchism without going through something like communism?

[@alexanderleuchte5132]

Not really an answer to your concrete question, i personally, as a not explicitely "political" person, see the only chance for such a change in a change of consciousness towards the realization of the interconnectedness of all things. Without that fundamental change of mind "civilized" people will never be able to have a society that isn't based on force, even through the way of some form of "communism". It would probably end up being just another political system as we know them, not a transitionary phase to an anarchic state of society. Political thinking is wrong thinking

[@MarshmallowRadiation]

I think that this is why totalitarian communist states typically fail, because while a free, equal, anarchist state may be the goal initially, those in power typically fall victim to the desire to maintain order through force. A better intermediate communist phase would be a communist state that has checks and balances to prevent the corruption of the ideal. But those checks and balances can't come from democratizing it to the public, at least not initially, because the public is too indoctrinated into the capitalist ideal and may not vote in the interest of equality. And even if they weren't, they're still susceptible to being manipulated by propaganda, disinformation, and miseducation by the state into voting in favor of the state's power rather than towards the ideal. A solution would be to have something like an independent supreme court judge the state's actions based on a pro-anarchist constitution, and have that court be seated not via nomination by the state but by an independent panel of academic experts. Though that might run into the public crying foul about the true power in society being held by an expert class and not the people's will (corrupted as it may be). Maybe these seats could be nominated by the experts and then voted on publicly, adding some democracy to the mix to satisfy the need to keep the people involved. That would be interesting, wouldn't it. On one hand you have a council of publicly elected representatives enacting a communist state, then an entirely separate council of publicly elected representatives to act adversarially to them to make sure they're on the right track. There's still a lot of ways a system like this could go wrong, but as long as the two separate councils remain completely independent of each other from nomination to legislation (i.e. no parties, no alliances, no communication or deals between the two), it would be a vast improvement over single-party control

[@enfercesttout]

Restructing of the society must be done from bottom up, rather than moral education of those atthe below from up if we want to see anything like anarchy. Cuban government does not build conditions of its own disappearance, or rather, it is practically impossible for those at the bottom to have a guarantee about any government doing what is best for them rather what is best for itself. Because this process would be self justifying, to bring closer to anarchy you would need further state action and you could never certainly know if to what is done is actually necessary because state also controls dissemination of knowledge. If it is bottom up, even is some sort of state is nefessary it would perform its function under the threat of direct violence from the organised oppressed bottom, which would independently decide if state's actions are necessary for their goals or if it is acting in good faith. At the moment they are able to and will need to get rid of state it would be anarchy. This is called dual power, is also how Bolsheviks got into power, then got rid of it.

[@awddsa2923]

What I would like to ask you is how do you exactly get from a bureaucratic authoritarian state(what socialist states that survive more than a few years tend to become) where the people at the top echelons of power end up with extreme power and privilege, like in any other hierarchical system, to a place where they all voluntarily give away their power and authority instead of trying to cement it.

[@leonidagrcka3979]

Sixst

[@davidmb1595]

No I can see why Marx called Proudhon an idealist, this is completely delusional. Nice video, helped me understand anarchism better

[@orange1599-u1n]

No to vaccine passports, no to forced or coerced vaccines.

[@bbblackwell]

Yes, yes, this is all well-intentioned, but as usual, we have an incomplete, imbalanced, over-intellectualized model of reality. It's all left-brained, ignoring the more subtle, generative influence of our feminine aspect. *Love is the Law* An intellectual understanding of how this plays out is incredibly supportive, but a union of our dual aspects is essential. Ignoring the voice of the heart is just as ill-fated as ignoring the dictates of reason.

[@chesterg.791]

I suprisingly agree with most of what Proudhon (at least whats in this video). However, the "socialist" type anarchist doesn't understand that collectivising land, innovation, and labor lessens incentive for the individual. Mises debunks the Labor Theory of Value with the Subjective Theory of Value. Individuals have subjective preferences. Destroying the incentive of property rights which can drive those subjective preferences leads to a less efficient society. That's why communism has to be enforced by authoritarianism, because collectivism lessens incentive for the individual. If you create or earn "capital" with your own labor, you should have the right to freely negotiate how others could utilize your capital for your own benefit... or else why would you take the risk to create or incest in surplus capital? This freedom to negotiate with your capital includes the right to offer wages. This is leverage and leverage is an incentive for others to acquire their own capital. I think Rothbard has a better philosophy about liberty than the collective anarchicst types. In Anarcho-capitalsim, you can still have that type of "socialist" liberty described by Proudhon, if all party's consent to it... but you can't have anarcho-capitalsim in Proudhon's vision if you believe property is theft... Correct me if I'm misunderstanding Proudhon, because I only have a surface level understanding of his philosophy.

[@ryancox5097]

Why are you growing a beard BENEATH your chin and jaw, but not ON your chin and jaw?

[@standowner6979]

😂😂😂😂

[@JS-dt1tn]

Nietzsche would eat Proudhon for breakfast. Any negative sublimation of the passions is always pushing us further to domestication. N would suggest this man was engorged with the love of the slave for sake of posterity and 'justness'.

[@MarshmallowRadiation]

Arguing which is "better" entirely misses the point of understanding and analyzing different concepts. It's not about who has the snappiest rebuttals, it's about viewing the world through a different lens and coming to a new understanding of things. Nietzche and Proudhon probably would have a lot of things to say about each other, but what matters isn't their own perspectives of each other but our own understanding of their perspectives on the world. And what's more is that they aren't even talking about the same field; Nietzche is more of a moral philosopher while Proudhon is more political; both are intimately related, but they have different focuses. Nietzche tries to understand the nature of morality and construct a morality that is not beholden to societal preferences, while Proudhon tries to construct an ideal of a stateless society. Neither of their views are all-encompassing or final, they are simply conceptual starting points to forming a broader understanding of things. Taking any philosopher as scripture is missing the point of philosophy.

[@alexanderleuchte5132]

I wouldn't necessarily assume that overcoming the degeneration of self proclaimed "civilized" people constitutes "negative sublimation of the passions". Is the tribal hunter rather a "domesticated" slave or the consumer vegetating between a mindless job and mindless entertainment?

[@enfercesttout]

Yeah, take away posterity and justness then there is a lot to talk about. Let's follow nietzsche and talk how beer is the drink of the mediocre against dionysian wine!

[@JS-dt1tn]

@@MarshmallowRadiation the moderator lacks all appetite for nuance. One should pit philosophies against each other! We should prescribe philosophies like medicine to the people and be strong in our decision. We should not be so tolerant of various viewpoints for the sake of abundance. I am not taking N as scripture, and in many ways, his lack of discussion of politics is telling. There are however psychological truths N proclaims that have merit, there are also claims that are wanting. Proudhon, at least in this video analysis, is full of premises that need the 'physician's' scalpel to cut away the dead tissue as it were.

[@JS-dt1tn]

@@alexanderleuchte5132 specifically that the distinction of passing on one's immediate passion when angry, and then to describe this mechanism as a moral law. This implies that there are cases where domestication is apt for adherence to the moral law as such. What about when one is angry not at one person but at the entire political apparatus of their country? Is allowing cooler heads to prevail a part of the bigger picture of 'moral law'? Proudhon has an odd order of rank for the state as above the individual even in his most fundamental premises.

[@gordonthomson1584]

Anarchy leads to another government

[@gordonthomson1584]

And who are you ?