Episode #195 ... Could Anarcho-Capitalism be the solution to our problems? - Anarchism pt. 4

Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help.

Social:

[malapuzta]

The interview with slavoj zizek needs to happen, please!

[beastmry]

I still can't believe how one man talking of philosophical ideas starting from ancient Greece has grown into such a popular podcast that people including myself listen to at least once a week, thanks to the backlog and how relistenable it is. It's an actual miracle and credit to Stephen West for being able to do so. I remember the earlier episodes when he used to mention being ad free always, but I knew it was a matter of time before sponsors picked up on just how big this podcast had grown, probably particularly during the pandemic.

[devilishegg]

I would love zizek but given his track record of going off on so many tangents, we still need you to deliver a standalone episode that dives into it. Given the references to the Other and the way anarchy is still an ideology, this makes perfect sense to continue!

[Anarcath]

Best philosophy channel on YouTube. I wish I had money to support you.

[chopperhauler]

Maybe a secondary channel where you can interview philosophers would be a good idea.

[perion]

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.

[bar_and_grill]

Thank you Mr West, you are a treasure to listen to❤

[jasonbye]

Yes to Zizek interview. I saw him in Portland, Oregon and love listening to and reading his stuff.

[codyc]

Im an ancap. The city i live in has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to put some rocks in a bay.

[LikeRYTP]

Would absolutely love to hear you interviewing Slavoj Zizek! Thank you so much for all what you are doing ❤❤❤

[maticdrempe]

As a Slovenian learning through philosophise this, I am beyond excited for the crossover.

Also you are really good at advocating for the devil. I mean devils advocate. Thats what I mean

[alanryan]

Terrific education. Thank you. Loved the name call at the end and yes please for that potential interview. Thank you for all you do.

[SentientRoomba]

Yes please, I would love to listen to your interview of him.

[arthurrotari]

An interview with Zizek on philosophize this, sounds like a dream come true.

[Circ_]

Okay, 4 issues.

1. Anarchism is not when there are no laws. I don't know why that is the common assumption, but in an anarchist society, there are laws. However, unlike state systems, they are instituted by the people directly affected by them the most(Direct Democracy, Consensus Democracy, etc.). In a state system, major decisions that affect the lives of countless people are decided by a small minority, based on their own goals, and enforced top-down. So they have governance, but they don’t have a state.

2. Capitalism is a hierarchical system. Simple as.
It is a system where the few extract excess labor value from the masses as profit and monopolize the means of production via private ownership. It is a system that cares less about stability and sustainability and more about the profit incentive and infinite growth.

It creates a diametrically opposed relationship between the business owner and the worker.
The owner wants to have the fewest workers possible, pay them as little as possible, and work them for as long as possible, as hard as possible, to extract as much profit as possible.
While the worker wants to be employed, work as little as possible, as calmly as possible, and earn as much as possible, in the best conditions possible.

At the end of the day, value comes from labor. If there were no workers then no products would get made. Even if a machine made the product, someone built said machine. Even if another machine built that machine, look back far enough, and you’ll find someone who made the first machine. In this way, all value comes from and eventually traces back to labor.

A company doesn't need a CEO to dominate and subject the workers to the decisions they make at the behest of their capital. On the other hand, a company without any workers would inevitably fail, which makes it, without a doubt, an unjustifiable hierarchy if you are an anarchist.

3. The anarchism always fails argument is wrong and a logical fallacy. First, there are examples of functioning societies that follow anarchist principles, with hundreds of thousands and even millions of people right now, like the Zapatistas and Rojava. Not to mention the countless ancient anarchist societies which include many indigenous groups in North America(Ex. Muscogee Creek Nation). Sure, they eventually fell, but they fell in the same way that all other civilizations fell. To say that they failed is to imply a metric of success that is very narrow and erases all other metrics of success that don't fit that conception. For many anarchists, these projects would be successful in that their failures and successes furthered progress toward anarchism, which is the primary goal for anarchists.

This leads me to the next point: saying that anarchism always fails because of something inherent is a false analogy. It is very similar to assuming that global warming isn't caused by humans because there have been other periods of warming in the history of the earth. In this example, you assume that because multiple events share a characteristic, they are analogous in other ways. The characteristic they share is warming, and the assumed analogy is the cause of the warming. But this excludes the fact that the other warmings had different causes, intensities, durations, and effects. In the same way, people assume that whenever anarchism collapses, it is because of something intrinsic to anarchism. Again, this excludes the fact that these societies went about anarchism differently. That different collapses happened at different times, for differing reasons, in different ways, in different circumstances, and for the most part, have little to do with each other. Thus, assuming something is fundamentally wrong with anarchism, *specifically* because of a false analogy, is misguided.
Whenever someone makes an assumption, they are always subject to the burden of proof.

4. Anarchism means no military or police force is wrong. Alright, this one sounds kind of misleading because anarchists DO NOT support a state-run military, prisons, or police(Especially police), but the idea the anarchists have no defense force and are opposed to violence is very very wrong. The reason anarchist don't support the military or the police is because their purpose is violently enforcing the rule of the state. If you are an anarchist, you think the state has some serious issues, so of course, you wouldn't support the groups that enforce their rule among the rest of the world and the national population respectively. But in an anarchist society, you would have a militia run by the community to combat domination using the force of mutuality. Domination being the degree to which a power structure uses coercion, violence, and/or deception to achieve its ends and maintain itself. Mutuality being the degree to which a power structure uses cooperation, self-defense, and free thought to achieve its ends. When it comes to crime, the solution is simple. The large majority of crime is caused by poverty; nobody steals something they already have in abundance. So, the solution to poverty is found through social amenities, mutual aid, and labor incentives, not by sending people to inhumane labor camps where they work for no pay and receive close to no rehabilitation or aid to better assimilate with the outside world. As for the police, no/low poverty means no/low crime, so justification for their existence ceases. Any crime that remains can be handled by the community fairly quickly, by action through the militia and public consensus on how to help/rehabilitate the perpetrator. On the other hand, serious crimes committed by genuine sadists who enjoy human suffering would be dealt with through permanent residence at a rehabilitation center, exile, etc...

Anarchism isn't only about having no hierarchies. It is also about instituting viable, flexible, and horizontal alternatives to these systems that achieve similar results as best as possible. Power can be delegated, but it is temporary and has to be able to be recalled/dissolved at the drop of a hat. In other words, you start with the bottommost unit(Community Counsel for governance, Militia for the army, and Pods for intelligence agencies) and have them make decisions about structures from the bottom up and then delegate. If someone above them in a delegated structure isn't doing what they’re meant to, they can just dissolve the entire structure.

Super cool that you're discussing this topic tho

For anyone wanting to learn more, I recommend starting with the YouTube channel Andrewism super-fun channel; once you get a good grasp of that, move on to the YouTube channel Anark (for intermediate/advanced), and when you understand those topics, start reading anarchist theory ( **https:// theanarchistlibrary. org** is the goat, trust. It has every piece of theory you could ever want).


TLDR: I am a nerd. pls, read if you want to learn because I physically cannot oversimplify any more than I already have. also read the paragraph right above this useless tldr if you are interested.

[lancequin]

This podcast is the definition of 'steelmanning' - he really makes the best arguments for all philosophies

[gbones]

Glad you got around to this material the last few episodes, its important to talk about go through. My own personal philosophy is a mix of Anarchist thought, some Peter Singer, a dash of Nozick and a liberal peppering of your channel.

[gitarrojoe]

i think the interview is great idea, its additional content. if you contextualize the input then i trust it will be another great episode! thanks <3

[markoslavicek]

Oh man I cannot wait for the following episodes and interviews, really.

[misery_of_mika]

This anarchism series is frickin awesome… and having Zizek on the podcast would be a dream come true! I love the guy even though most of what he says does go over my head and what I do understand I don’t necessarily agree with ;) I do also agree with an other commenter on the fact that you’d need a more organized episode to unpack everything he talks about in the case of an interview. Thanks for making these as always ! You’re definitely doing your bit to contribute to building a society of empathetic critical thinkers <3