Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "Nestor Makhno: Ukrainian Anarchism and the Free Territory of Ukraine" video.

Ahh... Anarchist, the movement that is built around contradictions.
4
@d.c.8828 "Allow me to preemptively state that defensive violence in the face of territorial conquest is justified." I do not see why anyone would think otherwise. So I don't get what the point of that statement is. "Organizing collectives and having a known "leader", figure, or spokesperson, is not the same thing as centralizing power." Centralized Power is a result of Organized Society. A Collective will always result in the creation of Centralized Power. Maybe not right away, but it is an inevitability. So the only way for Anarchism to work is to not have a collective, and to have no organized society. Why I said it is a contradiction is because, most Anarchist are Collectivist, which is the contradiction. If you're part of an organized society you're not an Anarchist. However, the concept of having a Collective will result in creating a Social hierarchy, which in turn will create Centralized Power, and it only gets worse when said society gets larger, and larger. As it becomes next to impossible for individuals within said society to have any real possibility of representation in that hierarchy, and that doesn't matter whether it's a Monarchy, a Dictatorship or even a Democratic or Republic system, you will not be represented, as you're at the very bottom of that social hierarchy. As I said though, hierarchies will always form, even within a collective. Very simple example a union gets large enough the workers have to have some form of control/management of some kind, even if it's elected among themselves who will be in charge of paper work, and maybe representation when communicating with the outside world, those people get a fancy office chair while the workers who elected them bones wither away while mining as a small example. USA being a pretty darn good example of that actually. America was founded by people who wanted no centralization, the very first iteration of the USA was a Confederation for example as an attempt to hopefully not have centralized power. However, it didn't work out very well. We in turn created a Federal Government but one with a lot of checks/balances in some hope it would keep those in power, checked, or locked in a way so they couldn't gain absolute power. Which is how the USA operated for relatively a century afterwards. Yes there are many in the USA who want to erode those checks/balances and it's sad to see. Most of them really have no effect on curving power anymore. Despite this... people still fled the eastern United States to the western territories to escape an unfair system. Long before the erosion began. Because, despite being a collection of States, internally all those mini states also developed social hierarchies. Land was scarce, you had to play by rules you may not agree with created by people you may of never even supported politically among many other things. People, a lot of people didn't like it, it wasn't the freedom that the American Dream promised. In many respects it shows how unfair democracy is, for those who are not represented ie those who fail to gain a voice politically in said society. I hate to quote a character played by Mel Gibson but "An elected Legislator can trample the rights of a man as easily as a king can." I will circle back to the beginning as a reminder. If a Social Hierarchy forms, you will have centralized power. It doesn't matter what kind of system you're living under either. This is why Socialist systems turn into tyrannical systems. As to have a socialist system you to put society in control of the state, in who runs a socialist society? Those at the top of the New Revolutionary movement, or "New Society." Because? Even within a Socialist movement you have a social hierarchy. Despite that a socialist movement is supposed to be a populous movement, or a collectivist movement, in which everyone should supposedly be fairly represented, but never is. Because push comes to shove, individuals in society are selfish and greedy, if you have a choice between a office chair or a shovel you will take the chair, and you will do whatever you need to do to ensure you get that chair. This goes all the way to the top of society. ^ Actually why I laugh my ass off at Socialist who call Capitalist greedy. I would just reply "And Socialist are any different?" History has proven that socialist are literally no different.
1
@therewaswith186 lol Yes... all society require hierarchies. Even the management of a railroad, so that actually works. it's why a corporation basically functions like a State/government. The management of a Corporation or Business, or even a Public School is very little different than how a Government operates. Government is just the very top of the social ladder. Whether a president, a king, a dictator, etc. all relatively the same thing.
1
@therewaswith186 Actually being I'm playing Genshin Impact right now it reminded me of that Contradiction. The City of Mondstadt in the game is supposed to be a Anarchist Society ie the City of Freedom. Yet there is an organization within it called the Knights of Favonius who are the Government basically. They're the Police walking the Streets, they're the ones managing imports/exports of wine/goods within the city, they're providing security for the trade routes, make arrest toward citizens who break laws. Yet... it's supposed to be an Anarchist city? It's comical that even in a work of fiction trying to portray Anarchism just comes off as a joke.
1
@dalstein3708 History itself. What I mean is... why do you think Anarchism has never existed in modern history, or honestly past history? Even in Tribal societies you still had hierarchies and those are the closest the world has ever been to Anarchism, even then it was only possible at such a tiny scale. Yet still wasn't anarchism. Once you go beyond that because of the concept of a Social Hierarchy which is inherent to organized society, ie required of Society to even function, anarchism becomes impossible. Anarchism is a pipe dream dreamt up by specific groups of Socialist in the 19th Century and WILL NEVER be possible. Because they believe an organized society would fluidly function without a hierarchy which history as proven when in practice just isn't true, a hierarchy will form and honestly MUST form. Anarchism, in short, in the concept of Organized Society, or Society itself just isn't possible. It's a contradiction because to be an Anarchist you have almost no choice but to be against the very concept of having a organized society otherwise your idea of Anarchism will be impossible.
1
Just An Observer On The Internet Well that is nonsense. Do you really think there is a possibility of having a Just Hierarchy? That is hopeless romanticism. We humans are too fickle for that to be a possibility, it's impractical to think it would be. The concept of a Hierarchy literally prevents that. Good example being, a phycological analysis of most political is that they're narcissist self obsessed people, getting higher up the political ladder isn't for the people but for their own EGO, Putin is a good modern example of this, as well as Trump, both narcissist, ego driven public figures which their followers who support them view them as the highest of society, ie best of society and drool over them... yet... in most cases these narcissist political figures don't even give a crap about their own followers just use them for their own ends. Similar analysis of CEOs is that they're psychopaths, often to rise to a ranks of a business as large as a multi national corporation pretty much requires a person that willingly crushes their rivals with no mercy, no remorse, which often leads to psychopaths getting to the top of the social ladder of major corporations as more morally excellent people are the ones they crush and exploit. But partners, including other stock holding employees don't care they just care about how successful the company is so if that means said individual can get away with absolutely destroying the lives of their rivals. These are not good qualities but yet seem to be universally common among Public Figures, and yes CEOs are public figures. You see it in Hollywood among writers and actors as well. So... yes people who rise up the social ladder rarely if ever do so for good reasons. There is no Justice, and having anything but an unjust hierarchy is literally a pipe dream. I mean it's why Twitter emotionalism is a joke that people often make fun of as again, ego driven narcissist constantly finding battles to fight for to make themselves feel better than they are, because they enjoy the social recognition ie narcissism.
1