Of the many predictions of how the State would evolve Bakunin's were the most accurate.

Wow. Brilliant stuff. Completely opened my mind to a new line of thinking. Brilliant job. Thank you very much for this!

I'd just like to say that you've done a very good work on making a proper view of what Bakunin argued for.

Great video, many thanks!

Great video

Great video one of my favorite people

Excellent. Thank you. Noam Chomsky brought me here.

I've read your work on Athenian anarchists a few months ago

very good video

nice one Thessaloniki also a anarchist stronghold in Greek culture

Excellent lecture! Can you please elaborate about other forms of social organizing? Without overarching state hierarchies? Radical active projects? Autonomy and respect? Fantastic! Let's here more about this, please!

I really appreciate the perspective, and Bakunin makes some excellent points about the justification of violence, ulterior motives, and the mobilization of resources for violence in the name of the state or its continuation, but I can't get past some inherent issues with his alternatives. With a genuinely open mind, I would love to hear from some of the viewers where I may be wrong in my initial assessment of the following issues: 1. Group vs. group competition for resources (including in the form of preemptive strikes) historically precedes the existence of states; there are hordes of evidence from archaeological findings & contemporary observations of non-state hunter-gatherers and horticultural groups. I realize modern states can mobilize far more resources, thus resulting in much higher absolute casualties, but the ratios of such violence in proportion to the population of the time have dropped significantly. Even if you dispute the latter portion about ratios vs. absolute totals, there exists sufficient evidence that the behavior applies to centralized & decentralized (even stateless) societies. 2. Decentralized federations (even if non-violent) would suffer the same crippling problems as confederations or even cooperative states of the past: there would be no standardized format for production or intercommunication between federations. Most would likely attempt to interconnect to promote commerce, but with no body to decide or measure a consensus on common measurements, units of exchange, interchangeable parts, or standards for communication lines & transportation pathways, it would be likely become an inefficient, befuddled mess. I realize we could use the mechanisms already in place, but who is responsible for maintaining their upkeep and continuing their standardization? 3. While centralized authorities are also prone to corruption (cronyism, lobbying, etc.), decentralized entities are equally or additionally prone to acting in the self interest of their members or individuals--only this time, nobody is there to potentially monitor or whistle-blow. For example, the 2008 Recession, which resulted from corrupt banking practices, spurred several measures to further regulate the exploitative practices. Absolutely some were blocked and not enough responsible individuals punished, but at least there was a large-scale federal effort to regulate and monitor activity. If federations were decentralized, there would be no reasonable way to correct or regulate corrosive practices. Perhaps some could and would from within their own communities, but this collective anarchism model would likely result in a multitude of communes experiencing (or even continuing) such practices. 4. Self-interest is a fundamental drive for SOME. Certainly not all individuals are guilty of this, and there certainly exists a spectrum of self-interest with altruism at one end and narcissism at the other (similar to trait Agreeableness in the Big Five), but one can imagine it near impossible to eliminate or regulate the existence of a certain portion of inexorably self-interested individuals. Also, if criminals were to be expelled or leave a commune, what would protect neighboring regions from their malicious intent? It would likely be similar to a frontier zone in past centuries--zones noted for their pronounced violence & other forms of criminality. 5. Collective anarchism seems to be a lack a means of protecting federations or unions from localized catastrophes (natural disasters, famines, etc.). Perhaps some neighboring communities could offer up help, but who would inform them? Often times such disasters (particularly drought & pestilence) would extend to multiple communes simultaneously, thus endangering entire regions and straining or exceeding the ability of surrounding communal aid. I realize even centralized states and international communities may fail to act effectively at time, but it becomes much more easy to do so. 6. While regional disasters are certainly an issue, decentralized federations would also lack the ability to coordinate or enforce large-scale, global issues as well, such as climate change, over-fishing, over-hunting, pollution, desertification, etc., One could certainly argue that such communes may drastically reduce air, soil, and water pollution, but history clearly shows that we DO NOT need industrial tools and devices to decimate the environment or avoid the dreaded tragedy of the commons dilemma. We wipe out species of flora & fauna in our own quest to maintain ourselves, even dating back to the Paleolithic Era. Additionally, it requires the removal of humans from any zone (even pre-state societies) to allow environmental regeneration in national forests and other protected areas. 7. Localized communes have already existed historically, and their pattern inevitably has become a process of conflict over resources or other interests, and the gradual absorption and centralization of regions, generally based on conflict. I fail to see a mechanism that would prevent such a process from occurring once again, and, to some degree, experiencing a tragic repeating of historical blunders & unnecessary violence. Please let me know what you all think. I am hoping to avoid polemic replies in favor of genuine engagement and open mindedness, but, being the internet, I have no way to stop you from doing so.

Is there any way we can have a list of references for those quotes please? I need them for an essay

can you list the projects at the end?

"There are examples of stateless societies." Cool, what are some? "..."

I would love to know more and I was thinking while watching this (the most informative video to be honest I have been able to find on this subject) how would the bounties be drawn in an anarchist society to address generational trauma between different cultures of people within what was once a 'state'?

Excellent video. It's so important to have clear and concise summaries of political theory, especially anti-authoritarian, collectivist and libertarian socialist theory. Not sure many could top this.

Can you please write out the names you mention at 10:57? I'd like to research their work. Much thanks.

All for it and I'm easily attracted Bakunin's ideas and narrative, but I start to think about the details, things simply do not hold without a state -- how things are managed, how do you get food, energy, healthcare, damn it PC components?

What book is this from?

are anarchy communities powerful enough to fight huge scale wars?

Bakunin is Based

as a historical materialist, while i agree with the Bakunin's sentiment, i don't think we can just overthrow the state. After all we had hierarchyless society before and it was absolutely swallowed up by states. no reason to think it would happen differently to a newly created anarchy. I think we wont get rid of state until we get rid of scaricity - which is the primary reason of human conflict and subsequently domination of hierarchical society.

It sounds as if Bakunin would oppose a socialist objective of communist society? Something wrong with my conclusion.

I wonder what Bakunin would have thought about modern progress. Per capita, life is longer, and more peaceful than at any point in history, obviously omitting the shadow of nuclear holocaust.

Would God be an anarchist, a communist, neither or both

First

No way that people left stateless will form their own states based on proximity , of any kind. As animals we are in-group oriented so good luck on overcoming genetically hardwired anti-other reality.

States and Nations are automatically bad is wrong idea.

anarchy is impossiblist it never worked