Transcript
Speaker: Hello and welcome back to another episode of the Debatable Discussions podcast.
Speaker: Today we're here and joined by Lachlan who's been on the podcast previously in episode 2 of the podcast.
Speaker: So welcome back Lachlan, it's great to have you.
Speaker: Thank you very much for having me back guys.
Speaker: 2-1, Corwin vs. Scaramucci now.
Speaker: I'm very happy on the screen of all.
Speaker: I'm back in front so it's good to be back on.
Speaker: Thank you very much.
Speaker: And thank you for coming on as well.
Speaker: So today we've got quite an exciting episode as we're going to be sort of delving into political philosophy and in particular anarchism.
Speaker: So Lachlan, can you start off with just explaining what anarchism is?
Speaker: Yeah, I think firstly it's important to differentiate anarchism versus anarchy.
Speaker: So people kind of get this very confused because obviously anarchy is like that state of chaos that you have.
Speaker: Like you see like the Purge movies, for example, that's the image that comes to mind when you say it in pop culture.
Speaker: But in terms of like a definition of anarchism, just to help understand, it would be the belief in abolition of all government and organization of society as a voluntary cooperative basis without force or compulsion of other people to do things.
Speaker: And what this means is there's no top-down power structure.
Speaker: they call it lateral or polyarchic order is a phrase.
Speaker: I was going on the anarchist chat rooms to try to understand what they're all about.
Speaker: So it's like a polyarchic, multipolar, so no one domineering power in that structure.
Speaker: And in terms of how this actually works today on like a local or international level, on a local level, you're looking at like co-ops, cooperatives, which basically means
Speaker: everyone contributes and the success is distributed on a common dividend, so everyone is equally compensated for the work that they put in.
Speaker: Self-governing municipalities on a smaller local level, like how we have constituencies in the UK, for example.
Speaker: So these are small local structures which allow us to govern all aspects collectively without having to have representatives or large political structures in place.
Speaker: And then internationally, it's kind of just, it's less international than you would have now, because obviously you're talking local municipal levels.
Speaker: But what you'd have if someone was trying to exert power on the other anarchic municipalities, you'd have them come together and kind of suppress it and fight back.
Speaker: So you would have, you know, some sort of capacity for violence, if you will.
Speaker: But then return that to the status quo to return to that polyarchic order that you have, you know, with small local states.
Speaker: And in terms of how this actually works, in theory, there's no real one dominating text on this because classic anarchism, every text is polyarchic, right?
Speaker: People draw from different texts.
Speaker: There's no lead like modern philosophers on anarchism, really.
Speaker: But you have this idea of mutual aid by a guy called Kropotkin.
Speaker: Sorry, he's a Russian thinker, Russian writer.
Speaker: And this is this idea of...
Speaker: setting up organizations to try and give back to people who need it most, this idea of those who need it receive it.
Speaker: And using these institutions, not institutions, sorry, organizations instead of the institutions in place.
Speaker: So instead of the police, you call your neighbor instead of, I don't know, tax, you use your own smaller transferable item to kind of trade like a signal of wealth, for example.
Speaker: Um, and this is designed so people will be able to see cooperative behavior.
Speaker: And naturally, if you're setting up organizations, which combats, you know, for example, companies and dividends are equally distributed, people are more naturally likely going to be going to those organizations where they receive better compensation than a company, which is going to exploit them.
Speaker: Right.
Speaker: So they believe there's going to be, there could be a natural transition if people see the benefits of these organizations.
Speaker: Um,
Speaker: There's also a question of is this feasible in human nature?
Speaker: I think that's an interesting question.
Speaker: Obviously, Darwinism goes against this.
Speaker: I'd be interested to hear what you guys would actually think in the terms of does human nature allow this sort of organization to be set up and people to naturally transition over to this polyarchic structure?
Speaker: I feel personally that, and this is slightly Darwinist in a way, but there is a sense of human nature and greed.
Speaker: And I think, especially from how you've described anarchism, it's almost this idea of almost like commune.
Speaker: It's mutual, it's collective, it's sharing things.
Speaker: And also sort of a great level of respect amongst people to almost walk this quite tight line, which is anarchism.
Speaker: But I think naturally humans are greedy.
Speaker: You know, we see it in the world today.
Speaker: Naturally, humans do want more than other people.
Speaker: We are quite intrinsically, inherently competitive.
Speaker: And I think that's the main sort of objection I have to anarchism as theory.
Speaker: I just see without any sort of law enforcement, there's so much potential for conflict simply because, would I be right saying, it almost just takes one human to mess it up.
Speaker: And seeming that humans are inherently greedy, as Darwin describes, we want more survival of the fittest.
Speaker: I think that could potentially be very problematic.
Speaker: I'm gonna disagree here.
Speaker: I think calling humans inherently greedy is a statement that one cannot prove.
Speaker: I don't know if now in our society we are sort of conditioned to be greedy.
Speaker: I'd agree with that.
Speaker: I think sort of 2025, if you get born in 2025 and you see everything around you, you see all the consumerism, all the shops, all the ads, all the sort of social media posts by people like, oh, I just got a new Lamborghini, all that kind of stuff.
Speaker: I think that conditions you to be greedy.
Speaker: I don't think humans, though, in their sort of
Speaker: core in their gene are greedy i don't think you can say that because if you go back to our hunter gatherer days
Speaker: We weren't greedy.
Speaker: I'd say we were greedy there.
Speaker: I'd say we were greedy in our hunter-gatherer days.
Speaker: Why?
Speaker: Because we were greedy.
Speaker: We were greedy for food.
Speaker: We were greedy for power in those hunter-gatherer stages.
Speaker: We needed to kill almost to feed ourselves.
Speaker: And the more you killed, the longer you could live.
Speaker: But needing to kill to feed yourself isn't greedy.
Speaker: Yeah, I guess, yeah, I guess that's how you define it in a way.
Speaker: I think, you know, because then it was sort of tribes just working together with people having different social skills and different jobs and using them as best they could.
Speaker: I don't think that inherently, so if you put someone on a planet by themselves, they would tend to be greedy.
Speaker: Well, actually, this is quite interesting because Kropotkin, that Russian writer I mentioned earlier, is actually a scientist.
Speaker: And he had this issue with Doranism because...
Speaker: you guys are probably familiar, but Darwin went to islands in the Caribbean in order to develop this theory of survival of the fittest.
Speaker: And what he found was when there was an abundance of resources, people would compete, or in this case, animals, would compete in order to survive and would kill each other, like you said, John, in order to, you know, be greedy and get resources.
Speaker: But
Speaker: Kropotkin didn't necessarily agree with Darwin here.
Speaker: And what he did is he went to Siberia, where he saw instead of competition between different animals, there was actually collaboration, because without collaboration, you couldn't survive the Siberian climate.
Speaker: It just wasn't possible.
Speaker: And what this meant was actually that humans, neither being inherently necessarily greedy or not greedy, responded to the situation that they were put in.
Speaker: And this is quite interesting because it means then that actually just because humans are greedy in some circumstances doesn't mean they're greedy in every circumstance or even selfish for that matter.
Speaker: And then in theory, that does make it possible to have an organization like a cooperative and therefore anarchist polyarchic order.
Speaker: But then if you are basing your theory on human nature of the situation that humans are put in, does that mean this sort of structure can only work in certain climates and certain areas?
Speaker: You know, can anarchism only work in the east of Russia and it will actually fall apart in the arable lands of eastern America where there's a lot to be gathered, right?
Speaker: not to be gained, you know, or like, for example, very Arab resources, people compete.
Speaker: So, you know, how do you reconcile that?
Speaker: I think I would say it's not as it's not directly about how many resources you can get, but more about the sort of
Speaker: It's all about the resources in themselves, but the res what they give you.
Speaker: Because for example, I think if you just give like humans, for example, if you just an alien comes, that's like human like, can you give them a hundred pounds?
Speaker: They're gonna be like, what, what, what?
Speaker: But then if you tell them this way, you can do it a hundred pounds.
Speaker: And this is, you know, you can do this and do that.
Speaker: Then I think that is when competition starts because, you know, you go now it's so easy.
Speaker: I usually just pick this up.
Speaker: You go open your phone, you go on Instagram and the first thing you see is like cars, things, holidays.
Speaker: I just bought this, I just did that.
Speaker: And then it's not about the money itself, but about what the money gives you.
Speaker: So I think in a sort of climate like ours today, where we're sort of conditioned to want more,
Speaker: I would say not for this, I say just for the sake of wanting more so that we can sort of brag to other people, we can be having higher social status.
Speaker: I didn't think anarchism would be possible.
Speaker: But I think in a state where, you know, again, you bring aliens here and you're like, this is a hundred pounds and the alien doesn't know what a hundred pounds means and doesn't really care about the fact that he can post on Instagram and TikTok and whatever.
Speaker: I think then it might be possible.
Speaker: Well, Dayan, you might know better than me, but one of the issues, which, not necessarily issues, but questions I had when looking at this was, how do you transition to it today when humans aren't aliens, but rather have the imprints of the society brought up all over their minds?
Speaker: That's a really hard question.
Speaker: And that's sort of the main issue with anarchism, is that it's...
Speaker: theoretically i would say theoretically apt but it's quite difficult to go back because we've kind of crossed we've crossed the rubicon in a way but now in the when you have like what i find very strange nowadays is when you know sometimes go out and you see like
Speaker: people with their, I don't know, like two year old kids and their two year old kids are in like designer clothing or like people posting on like TikTok dances with their like four month old toddlers.
Speaker: Like why?
Speaker: So I think we've, after you've gone past that point that people begin to do that, it's frankly, it's quite game over and it might be game over for us because we've, we've gone there already.
Speaker: But yeah, I think it's so difficult unless... I think the only way we can get to anarchism is in case of a sort of great disaster.
Speaker: So you don't believe in a peaceful transition?
Speaker: No, I think unless the world gets nuked, then there's only like a hundred survivors.
Speaker: You know, actually, John, you brought the comparison between Marxism and anarchism, and that's quite an apt comparison because sometimes it's hard to really differentiate the differences.
Speaker: But modern-day Marxists also believe you have a...
Speaker: could have a peaceful transition you know like the setting up of the labor part for example you know people would vote for their interests you know and then eventually that will lead to a marxist society because people want you know if more people are poorer than rich the poor people in a democratic society will win out and labor and wealth will be redistributed um but obviously that hasn't happened um and actually inequality has increased in the united kingdom since the labor party has been formed
Speaker: uh so you know when looking at a peaceful transition of anarchy it is actually quite hard to to imagine that to be honest yeah i was gonna say i i think it is basically impossible because i mean not only do we have this sort of world dominated with nation states and division in that sort of way anyway but i think as diane was saying the way society is developed
Speaker: is in a way that's based upon greed.
Speaker: And for humans, and this sort of goes back to what I was initially saying, I think for humans to drop their greed, it is almost impossible.
Speaker: You see it in, this is a sort of comparison to Marxism in a way, but Soviet Russia, for example, like collectives,
Speaker: people, there was just so much unrest because people almost couldn't bear living in like a collaborative common society.
Speaker: They always wanted to sell their surplus, which was grain.
Speaker: They wanted to, you know, be richer than the person next door to them in a way, and they disliked sharing everything.
Speaker: And so I think that's simply just because of the way society had developed previous to that, in which they knew the pleasures that
Speaker: you know, not being collaborative could bring.
Speaker: So I think, as Diane was saying, the way society has progressed, we've become so materialistic, rightly or wrongly, we've become, you know, based upon greed and self-interest.
Speaker: I think to go from that to a system like anarchism, it's just not almost transferable.
Speaker: I don't know how the transfer would be, but it'd be
Speaker: multiple steps yeah.
Speaker: Do you believe that's like an inevitable step in human evolution that idea that the greed will win out and we're naturally born to compete and and this is how because this is how humanity has progressed this is how it was always going to progress this is natural or not?
Speaker: I don't think so I think and not to be sort of too abstract but I think if you go back
Speaker: to before the agriculture revolution of 10,000 BC, you wouldn't have this problem because then it's when property got invented.
Speaker: And then again, come back to Soviet Russia.
Speaker: I do think the problem was the sort of community aspect of it.
Speaker: I think the problem was that everyone was so poor they didn't have food.
Speaker: and they were basically struggling to out-compete each other for basic survival.
Speaker: I think if everyone had a decent living standard, where no one felt that they couldn't, for example, like eat this evening, I think a communal space would be possible.
Speaker: Now, is that ever going to happen?
Speaker: Probably not.
Speaker: I'm happy to say that it's probably not going to happen.
Speaker: But
Speaker: I think from the moment we've sort of invented property, we've been conditioned to desire it.
Speaker: You know, you grow up and also gifts, you know, birthdays from the moment you're like, I don't know, from when you can remember, like three years old, four years old, you're waiting for your birthday, but you're not waiting for your birthday because, oh, I'm one year old.
Speaker: That's actually a negative thing if you think about it.
Speaker: you're waiting for your birthday to receive a gift.
Speaker: So you've been conditioned since birth, basically, to be like, oh, if I get older and I'm a year closer to my death, then that means I get present, so I'm happy.
Speaker: Which to me doesn't make any sense.
Speaker: No, it's true.
Speaker: It's transactional.
Speaker: Sorry, go on, John.
Speaker: What were you going to say?
Speaker: Yeah, I was going to say, but I think, as you were about to say, it does show the transactional nature of society.
Speaker: I mean,
Speaker: almost the way society developed is for us to be is for us to be consumerist in a way and for us to almost expect to receive something I mean it doesn't make much sense when you look at it on that level but it's almost human nature I think it's developed into our nature now just to expect things hasn't it
Speaker: Well, I'm not sure necessarily.
Speaker: I think it's developed into our nature because of the system that we've developed.
Speaker: I mean, I also must note if, you know, for an anarchist listening, the comparison to Soviet Russia would be very disagreeable to them because they believe that...
Speaker: the state creates the exploitation which then creates the issues in society.
Speaker: So you have those issues in Soviet Russia because the state is still exploiting the people and leading to issues with wealth inequality.
Speaker: So the comparison is not really there for an anarchist.
Speaker: But then in terms of us being naturally transactional and consumer focused now, I mean, once again, go back to Kropotkin.
Speaker: If you look at the hunter-gatherer tribes of humanity that didn't have much, they're not excessively always consuming and more and more and more.
Speaker: I mean, they're consuming more to have more children and then to have security, but they're not...
Speaker: you know, destroying the planet like we are now or, you know, just ruthlessly killing each other at any point just because someone has food and someone doesn't, you know.
Speaker: There's groups of, you know, large groups of people collaborating for their entire lives in the system unfairly and justly.
Speaker: So I wouldn't say that it's necessary.
Speaker: I wouldn't say it's natural at all necessarily for this to be the way all humans behave all the time.
Speaker: Yeah, I do agree with that.
Speaker: I think it's sort of our conditioning that's led us to this point.
Speaker: The way we've developed.
Speaker: Yeah, the way we've developed, the way we've developed society, the way society has developed us has gone to a point where if you don't
Speaker: If you don't have some material things, then you get looked down upon.
Speaker: I mean, this is why people are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on cars.
Speaker: And it's like, I get that some people have a sort of like the cars and it's the engine and whatever, I don't know.
Speaker: But there are people who genuinely say, oh, I bought this car just so that I can go.
Speaker: And people will be like, oh, look, it's car.
Speaker: Why would you do that?
Speaker: Yeah, it's a weird kind of concept when you look at it from a logical point of view.
Speaker: Actually, I have one more question, I guess, feels off of that.
Speaker: Is this even desirable?
Speaker: I know, Dan, you would argue more yes, John, you'd probably argue more no.
Speaker: But anarchism forum to combat the issues of poverty, inequality, exploitation, injustice, you know,
Speaker: One of the ideas that the legal system isn't even morally right or wrong.
Speaker: I mean, steal a loaf of bread for your starving family, you go to jail, get out of paying millions and millions of dollars in tax, and you're fine and you're scot-free.
Speaker: And if anything, this is desirable.
Speaker: Like you have people on Instagram teaching you how to do tax avoidance and use artwork and charities to just pay less tax, right?
Speaker: you know, this, for anarchists, this is an idea that society and the state has skewed our perception of what, you know, is morally right and wrong.
Speaker: But is it, you know, truly, like, warranting a total transition of our society to try and combat these issues?
Speaker: You know, where do we go from here for an anarchist society?
Speaker: Can we still live at that same standard we live at currently, and still get rid of these issues?
Speaker: You know, how do we manage these issues?
Speaker: What do you think, Lachlan?
Speaker: Oh, yeah.
Speaker: Well, I mean, the first issues that come to mind are your large projects.
Speaker: So any sort of air travel, any sort of nuclear power station, any sort of artificial intelligence, those huge issues there in terms of actually producing that, you know, the international trade required for this is something that's only really come about since the era of free trade post-World War II.
Speaker: And that's in a system that's very, very cohesive internationally with large concentrations of wealth and large regulations in place in order for that to be allowed to happen.
Speaker: If you don't have insured trade with concentrated wealth, I don't see how you can have these large projects happen.
Speaker: You know, in a small municipality in, I don't know, the Netherlands, in an anarchist society, how are they going to make an airport?
Speaker: I just don't see how that works.
Speaker: But then again, you do have increasing wealth inequality.
Speaker: In the UK, for example, you have increasing child poverty over the last few years.
Speaker: How do we have more billionaires than ever and more children are poorer than they were in the year 2000?
Speaker: So how is that a desirable outcome as well?
Speaker: I mean, that doesn't make any sense to me.
Speaker: So in terms of from that perspective, it is desirable, but then
Speaker: I guess once again, we're asking how do you transition?
Speaker: Can you have these things and continue to have these things when we're looking at smaller localized control in municipalities, for example?
Speaker: Yeah, I agree with you there.
Speaker: I agree with you in the sense that the face of anarchism is desirable, as in it offers you things which are desirable, like wiping out poverty and reducing this huge wealth inequality.
Speaker: But it sort of comes back to this idea of me of societal development and for societal development.
Speaker: I mean, Diane, you've been very critical on consumerism, but I would just say
Speaker: I mean, whilst it isn't a great thing, it's almost part of societal development.
Speaker: And anarchism is taking societal development back a few stages because you can't have these big infrastructure projects, as you've described, Lachlan.
Speaker: There are many sort of questions around, do we need a sort of a central government for the economy, for stability, for warfare, for example?
Speaker: So it's just...
Speaker: Yeah, it's just that sort of thing in me.
Speaker: I mean, obviously, the system we have today on the face of it isn't as desirable as anarchism.
Speaker: But anarchism seems a far less developed system of governments from an economic standpoint, I guess.
Speaker: Yeah, I think there's a very good point made down the large infrastructure projects.
Speaker: And, you know, there is no way
Speaker: So if even the most anarchist person that can go around and say, you know, I think we would be a lot better without airports and highways, that, you know, you can't say that, that, you know, fair point.
Speaker: But I think my question is, haven't we almost developed too much?
Speaker: Like, we are in such need of things and entertainment that, you know, there are... I'm in the boarding house sometimes and I go downstairs and I see like 20, 30 people watching Love Island.
Speaker: And I just get to feel like, you know, why?
Speaker: Why do you need to watch this stupid show every evening or else...
Speaker: you know you don't feel like you've received your daily dose of entertainment and i think that's something you've got against love island mate i don't know what that's got to do with the anarchism let me let me let me let me come to my point so i'm saying i think we've almost developed so much because society has lived for years and years and years without needing daily entertainment right
Speaker: I think we've almost reached a point that is overdevelopment.
Speaker: And I think going back a few stages would actually might be beneficial in some ways.
Speaker: I think that's quite a bold claim there.
Speaker: Because I don't think we know what too much development is.
Speaker: I think...
Speaker: I think your sort of argument is applicable to when the internet was created.
Speaker: I bet when the internet was created, there were tons of people saying, we've developed too far.
Speaker: Machines can take our jobs.
Speaker: And they were saying, we're too developed.
Speaker: Maybe we'd be better back in the 18th century.
Speaker: But when you think about what life was like back then, I mean, it's like the very famous Barack Obama quote, you'd rather live today than you would in any stage of history.
Speaker: Simply because...
Speaker: I think society, it has developed, but I don't think we know what too much development is because we are always developing.
Speaker: And what society is like in 100 years will most likely be very different to now.
Speaker: I mean, maybe people won't need constant entertainment through Love Island.
Speaker: Maybe they'll need even more constant entertainment.
Speaker: But, you know, society is a natural thing almost.
Speaker: I don't think we can just take it back.
Speaker: What do you think, Lord?
Speaker: Well, I mean, to be fair, I think that my original phraseology was slightly wrong in terms of those large infrastructure projects, for example.
Speaker: Like, one of the examples they give is, they give, the anarchists give, is...
Speaker: the railway networks in Europe and how those existed far before anyone came along, you know, like Napoleon and directly centralized the organization and the planning and the construction, right?
Speaker: And what happened was smaller areas, you know, created their own train tracks and created their own
Speaker: trains and platforms and whatever and stations and then just organized it with the next town along of certain times and certain tracks and and then eventually you have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of kilometers long railroad tracks of infrastructure going across europe before any centralized system and that's possible because
Speaker: Because in theory, I mean, that's perfectly plausible.
Speaker: I mean, you have people willing to cooperate and you have access to the materials they're willing to cooperate.
Speaker: Where I have my issue isn't in terms of the ability to actually have large infrastructure projects, it's the ability to concentrate materials necessary to make or produce these modern technologies they were producing.
Speaker: So like an airport, maybe, I guess in theory, maybe you can make an airport and find out this...
Speaker: but something like a nuclear power plant or artificial intelligence where you're acquiring materials that you can't get, you know, in the municipality you're in, or maybe not for the next 100 over.
Speaker: And how do you have that sort of large trade coming through?
Speaker: I guess you could in theory, but then you're talking about huge inefficiencies and is that desirable?
Speaker: I'm not sure.
Speaker: But so, I mean, in theory, that is more possible than, than,
Speaker: kind of what I'd said initially or how I phrased it initially I was going to say that's quite interesting because do you think there'd almost be inequalities in these anarchic societies so let's say one society which has got a load of access to iron or uranium compared to one that's
Speaker: got access to any a few grass crops, do you think there'd be a huge sort of inequality?
Speaker: Yes, is the only sense I think there would be.
Speaker: I mean, of course there would be, but no other system has solved that issue.
Speaker: As in that system has stayed in every issue.
Speaker: Like if you look at capitalism, there's a great book, Ha Jin Chang, I think 23 Things Run With Capitalism.
Speaker: And one of them is this idea that if you have a bus driver in Stockholm and a bus driver in Mongolia driving the mountains, right, the bus driver in Stockholm drives a much nicer bus.
Speaker: probably much better hours.
Speaker: It's a much easier job because the roads are easier.
Speaker: It's well lit.
Speaker: There's traffic lights.
Speaker: There's no risk to their life.
Speaker: The bus driver in Mongolia is driving dangerous roads, mountainside, maybe with no barriers and old buses with old brakes.
Speaker: But they get paid 1 50th of what the guy gets paid in Stockholm for a job that is much harder and requires much more skill.
Speaker: So in terms of having this sort of wealth inequality across nations,
Speaker: You know, if we don't expect capitalism to solve that issue, I'm not going to expect anarchism to solve that issue as well.
Speaker: So I don't see that as a huge issue with the anarchist system, given it's very, very present in the capitalist system.
Speaker: Yeah, I think almost though as well, if anarchism is on a small geographical scale.
Speaker: So for example, you've got municipality A, very rich in crops.
Speaker: municipality be very rich in iron and uranium.
Speaker: They would almost need each other's resources more.
Speaker: So there would be this collaboration where municipality would be like, look, you guys need food.
Speaker: We'll give you 50%, but you give us 50% of your iron.
Speaker: And although in our society now you say, well, paying for the same amount of carrots as uranium is stupid.
Speaker: probably is.
Speaker: But if you look at these municipalities, they would say, well, look, but we need food so that we can continue our uranium.
Speaker: And then the only thing we've got to trade for is uranium and iron.
Speaker: So it would be the sort of collaboration even between different anarchical systems, because it'd be just from a purely sort of geographical and practical standpoint, be quite hard for municipalities to see to have everything.
Speaker: Because it's so tiny, it's basically like a city, it's not even a city, it's just, you know, it's like a neighborhood.
Speaker: But isn't this a risky one?
Speaker: This is an issue which I haven't been able to reconcile in my own mind in terms of, because you're allowed self-interest in the anarchist system, right?
Speaker: Because self-interest allows you to trade with someone else, you know, because you want what they have and that's self-interest, but you're having cooperative trade.
Speaker: So if you have collaboration with self-interest, it's fine.
Speaker: But what if you have a municipality which has more than others and is no longer in their self-interest just to trade with the other municipalities because of that position that they're in?
Speaker: I don't really fully understand how you reconcile that issue because then you no longer have the excuse of self-interest is allowed, but it won't get in the way of this.
Speaker: Then suddenly going, okay, well, actually there's no reason stopping
Speaker: this municipality from just taking over the next municipality.
Speaker: Just so we understand better, you mean, for example, municipality A, municipality B, but municipality C has got both food and uranium.
Speaker: Yeah, it's just like, for example, if you're in a very arable area in Germany, you're going to have a heck of a lot more than if you're in a mountainous northern Italy, southern Germany, for example, Switzerland.
Speaker: And you would say, why doesn't the richer one take over?
Speaker: Yeah, I don't really see how your social boundaries stay there when you take away that necessity to trade and cooperate.
Speaker: Yeah, that's a good point.
Speaker: That is a very good point.
Speaker: Yeah, I can't get a response to that because that is really good.
Speaker: It's hard to reconcile that, isn't it?
Speaker: The self-interest would almost take over.
Speaker: I mean, yes, but I think the question is would it not be in their self-interest to just leave them alone and not risk any sort of war blaster than anything?
Speaker: I think that would be the question I would ask, but it is definitely a very good point made there.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah, I mean, if we're like, because if, you know, if we're assuming completely rational individuals, you would go, okay, well, they've weighed up the odds and they've gone, well, actually, maybe it's not worth going and fighting these people for this X amount of grain.
Speaker: But I mean, this is assuming completely rational individuals and that's never, especially what we've seen from geopolitics right now.
Speaker: Let's never assume completely rational leaders or no leaders in this sense.
Speaker: But, you know, how does that,
Speaker: you know, that necessarily won't stay in that solid system that Anarchy is talking about.
Speaker: And actually, to be fair, Anarchy would, Anarchists would come back and say, actually, this rebuttal, while the other municipalities would then go and invade the aggressor, right?
Speaker: They'd, you know... They would gang up.
Speaker: Yeah, they'd gang up by them and then return the status quo.
Speaker: Which, you know, is actually quite a good response, but then there's also a response of, okay, what if that doesn't work?
Speaker: you know, what if the one with the, you know, I mean, and then you can go into like, what ifs, what ifs, what ifs, but, you know, in a real situation where one actually has grown very strong and let's say all four surrounding it try and pacify it and don't succeed.
Speaker: That's a real potential issue that you have with the system.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: I do think it is a very sort of theoretical system and it is a theoretical system because of how much society has
Speaker: changed over the years and how much we've sort of adapted ourselves and adapted our needs and desires and sort of basic conditions.
Speaker: Yeah, I mean, we're having a very hypothetical conversation about a system which modern anarchists now, like from going on the chat rooms and reading the modern stuff that they're publishing,
Speaker: they don't believe in the fundamental ideas which were, you know, born 200 years ago from the French Revolution or, you know, further back, for example, right?
Speaker: So they don't believe that's how it's going to work anymore.
Speaker: So then you're going to, what you're having now is a,
Speaker: modern collaboration of anarchic ideas, then feeding into the capitalist system, which can just improve the lives of the majority of people.
Speaker: You know, you won't find many people now proposing to get rid of the entire international world order and going to these local municipalities.
Speaker: but you will find a lot of people advocating for cooperatives and kind of charitable ideas and food banks and stuff to help the poorest people.
Speaker: So, you know, in terms of that, I completely agree with those ideas.
Speaker: And those are kind of taking off locally now.
Speaker: There's even one in Bristol right now that...
Speaker: In COVID and lockdown, it was set up by 10 or 15 pubs.
Speaker: They all came together and bought food, local produce, and then gave it to people who couldn't leave their house.
Speaker: And this is an example of anarchic behavior.
Speaker: No centrally distributed idea, polyarchic order, for example.
Speaker: So it's a good example of that.
Speaker: And from that perspective, there's very promising ideals that are coming from the anarchic ideology.
Speaker: So to conclude the episode, I think I'll just quickly sort of wrap up our discussion.
Speaker: So Lachlan sort of started by explaining anarchism, sort of mainly mentioning about, am I right saying, the polyarchic sort of structure of it and how it is based on sort of collaboration without central authority.
Speaker: And then we all sort of took into discussing societal development, anarchism, and also sort of delving into this quite big issue of would it be possible to transition from our current very consumerist materialistic world to one like anarchism.
Speaker: Thank you very much, everyone.
Speaker: Thank you, Lachlan, for coming in.
Speaker: That was a good debate, good heated discussion.
Speaker: Got the blood flowing on a Sunday.
Speaker: Thank you very much.
Speaker: Easy conversation for a Sunday morning.
Speaker: Just the light stuff of human nature and how the state has developed.
Speaker: Some people go to the gym despite their heart rate.
Speaker: We debate on anarchism.
Speaker: Thank you very much and of course to our listeners as well.
Speaker: If you did enjoy the episode, do please go back to episode number two on the podcast, Capitalism vs Communism.
Speaker: Another classic discussion with Lachlan that we've had
Speaker: almost a year ago now and yes leave us in a sort of very consumerist way do leave us five star review and a comment if you enjoyed the episode thank you very much yes I'll say yes thank you Lachlan and thank you everyone for listening thanks guys appreciate it
