Anarcho-Capitalism or Totalitarian Communism? Question

taking your audience questions you can
go to our website David Pakman dot com and submit your questions there or
submit them on our read it go to Reddit dot com slash are slash the David Pakman show Brian wrote
to us and he said what is worse an Arco capitalism or totalitarian communism so are working
definitions an Arco capitalism is a system where you have essentially the elimination a
this state in favor of instead having individual
sovereignty private property completely open markets and the remark it would be what allows
society to improve his itself through research to development
manufacturing et cetera on the other hand totalitarian communism
would be a state where a according at least to the
Wikipedia definition definition the state holds total
authority over society and controls all aspect up
both public and private life which would be worse okay this is this
is what we’re speaking in extreme so this really is a theoretical discussion most societies are neither one nor the
other up when you think about an Arco
capitalism you’re thinking of society in a state
that is closer really to a state of nature not
technologically we could still have all the technology that we have today with societal leeanne governmentally
we’re really talking about a state of nature on the other hand when we think about a and and 22 kinda follow-up on that first first the
law it would certainly be more oven open society in that there
would be less structure that restricts what people are able to do but at the same time you have a
situation that does not really allow for self-determination because whoever happens to have but the
resources or whoever happens to be bigger and control more is going to be able to a press those in the same way that in a
totalitarian communist state it is the state oppressing people you will have the
exact same structure is except that will be in a kind of a who is the fairest of them all type of
scenario going to totalitarian communism in
totalitarian communism you will not have individuals who were
able to take control based on survival of the fittest but you will have a state imposed
control that will not be that different in practice individuals can disagree about if there is going to be a group
that is in control %uh other so to speak would
we rather it be a state system would be rather it be an
Arco capitalistic we’re just simply new survival of the
fittest an acquisition resources in control of land that we have those in control I think it
is a completely false notion that in an Arco capitalist system you
will eliminate control from above it will simply develop differently it
will still not be a democratically-elected system with
control so I think Lewis this is where a lot of people get lost when they really
favor an Arco capitalist systems typically libertarians because they say I don’t want an
establishment that I didn’t elect controlling my life which is even forgetting about the
totalitarian extreme even what some libertarians say about
the system of government we have here in the US well you’re not going to avoid a system
of control by going to an article capitalism we have a long history a thought and
writing on this you will there will be a system of
control that develops anyway it will also not be democratically
elected it will be taken by force which is something that those same
libertarians are an Arco capitalists accuse left governments are totalitarian
communist government up doing and I think that’s a blind spot for a lot of
people right all you need to do is look at this
country to realize why capitalism even with government
oversight and regulation can still totally dominate the country and I think in a totalitarian setting
you wouldn’t it wouldn’t necessarily be that
stereotypical Eve Ball big brother in nineteen
eighty-four type situation it doesn’t have to be anyway I know a
lot of times it is but remember when we’re talking about totalitarian
communism we’re not talking about a socialistic government we’re really
talking about quite literally total control over both private and
public lives so that’s you this is going even further
I think then what you’re saying list well if it’s if its stake in debt if thats if that’s the extreme Ben yes I
guess that would be pretty bad but I capitalism course can be it can be
pretty bad as well I think most reasonable people would
agree that no system of extremes is going to be the ideal system and also we should ask which system would be
better or worse but for the self-determination self-realization in
South actualization of people and I think both systems would be pretty
bad along those lines have excellent question we love taking your audience questions
the even be a voicemail 2192 David P or email us David Pakman dot com click
on contact us and

  1. They're both hyper-utopian and totally unfeasible. 
    Both ignore key aspects of human nature and would lead to massive power vacuums.
    And powers vacuums never say unoccupied for long…

  2. If we are speaking of extremes and pure practice of both, then it would be six of one, and half dozen of the other… just a matter of the label you put on the oppressor- the "state" or the "corporation"

  3. The problem with Anarcho-Capitalism is that statist indoctrination and crony capitalism is so far entrenched in our minds that we can't even fathom the concept. We just revert to the assumption that it would be the same crap as now, but even worse.

  4. How 'bout we take the liberating freedom part from both and leave the crappy parts like capitalism and totalitarianism behind, I know crazy idea right? Yes such an amazing arrangement can and did exist, it's called anarcho-socialism!
    I'd like to hear your thoughts on that Dave & Co.

  5. For Anarcho-Capitalism, look at Somalia and it's warlords.
    For totalitarian communism, we have North Korea.
    I won't select either.

  6. Dumb question, both are extreme cases that wouldn't help at all.  If you were to put a gun to my head and force me to make a decision I would choose anarcho-capitalism simply because evolution would lead to survival of the fittest which would be better than what goes on in N. Korea where a family takes control even if they are not the best of the species.  But that would once again be the result of putting a gun to my head and force me to make a choice.

  7. The system of government we have in place is great, we just don't follow it.  The federal government has stepped way out of bounds on it's power.  The federal government is there to deal with foreign issues, he states are there for domestic issues (something Jefferson supported).  With that you do have a government you elected representing you.

    Louis talks about the problems of capitalism when him, like all liberals, simply don't understand capitalism.  If our country is leaning to one extreme or another it is leaning towards totalitarian communism.  I am not saying it is near there it is just leaning there.  The fact that the federal government has created oversight has caused problems, it eliminated 50 states competing against each other.  Competition is a part of capitalism which is why it is a great system.

    The federal government is there for foreign affairs, the states for domestic, and the constitution to place limitations on all governments.  We have stepped away from that to achieve "equality" and "safety" from the federal government and we are getting neither. 

  8. No. Communism is a moneyless, classless, stateless society. Totalitarian communism has the possibility to be an oxymoron, since a communist society doesn't even have a state. I think they're talking about state socialism, which is certainly totalitarian. Plus, most anarchists are communists, and they're also definitely anti-state. Anarcho-Capitalism is also an oxymoron, because capitalism requires a state in order to protect the ownership of capital and an anarchic society is stateless anyway. They each seem to me nonsensical.

  9. AnCaps are all about the state of nature that John Locke bangs on about. Without realizing of course that in a state of nature, you're enslaved by nature itself. Life turns into a daily grind – just trying to survive until tomorrow. Can we eat? Do we have water? Are bandits going to hit us tonight?

    Turning life into a constant struggle to survive will bring us back to the bronze age real fast – not to mention that ALL your time is taken by just trying to survive, leaving no time for people to specialize in things – you know, that thing that put humans on top? Say goodbye to science, medicine, art, literature, etc. In the state of nature, man is ONLY interested in what helps him survive – or get sex. PERIOD.

    SOCIETY, on the other hand, takes care of the basic survival needs – so man CAN specialize AND BUILD THE WORLD YOU ENJOY TODAY.

    So, while a totalitarian Communist system is a nightmare – the AnCap's system is flaming, torturous hell-on-wheels. At least the totalitarian Commie regime IS A FUCKING SOCIETY. AnCaps want a Mad Max every-man-for-themselves analogue to a "society"… as dysfunctional as the Austrian "economics" they keep trying to sell us on.

    What would I want? A Constitutional Republic with a working Demarchy carrying out elections and representation (of course with a limited lot – only for those with more than two brain cells to rub together). It would be a LOT harder to corrupt – the Oligarchs would have to empty their money vaults just to buy the fucking place because there are just too many people to pay off. Oh, and any attempt to subvert the constitution, or the will of the people, would be classified as TREASON.

  10. So basically the question is do you want to love in a society where very few people have more than they could possibly need or use, or a system where everyone has a little bit more and, a few have more than they could need or use.

  11. I'd to see anarcho-capitalism tried large scale at least to see how it would turn out. Anarcho-capitalism would probably be a society run by a few mega corporations.

  12. david, you are a step-up from TYT in my opinion, in that you are more professional.  i would even support you again if you did more factual, less opinionated news.  i know this is a talk show, but that is just how i feel about it

  13. These are all incomplete, antiquated solutions to the same problem, acquisition and distribution of resources. If we had abundant energy and everything was automated, from farming, to mining, to manufacturing, then you wouldn't need either system. If we had viable fusion we wouldnt be invading oil countries, if there were robots mining diamonds from the atmosphere of Jupiter, helium-3 from the moon and gold from the asteroid belt we wouldn't be paying Africans to kill each other for them. Instead we blow our resources on building military hardware that sits in a warehouse until its antiquated and replaced all so that we can prop up a jobs for the sake of jobs paradigm.

  14. Who sets the questions, controls the answers. here the juxtaposition kind of implies that socialist policies predicate totalitarianism and the hosts needed to speculate (I think they're right though) that capitalism goes pretty much along the same road. If on the one side you have totalitarianism, and on the other a scenario that may or may not be totalitarian, I might be inclined to pick the latter. see my point?

  15. Those "take other ppls money" logic is so hillarious. As if you can life and not in one or the other way "use" money that other ppl have spent. I find this quite often in libertarian "arguments" and it fails right from the begining.

  16. This is what I've been trying to say ! The Beck, Limbaugh & Fox sheep are going down the path of Anarcho-Capitalism, And playing a made up straw-man of Totalitarian, socialism, Communism projection on the demarcates. While the reality is, the democrats are just trying to go back to the  equilibrium of social-capitalism that built this country before Reagan tore it down.  

  17. Are human beings fundamentally individual, or are they fundamentally part of some collective? This is the masked question, and why the one on the table makes no real sense. History provides no answer, because neither extreme has ever really been tried. And they won't. Besides, both terms, as presented, are oxymorons.

  18. Fascism :
    a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized government headed by a leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

  19. I forgot who said it but as the old saying goes,the best type of control is when people know they are being controlled,but don't mind.

  20. Bakunin said: "liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality". 

    In other words, these two ideas are equally bad.

    But there is a third option, and that is anarchism, or libertarian socialism. 

  21. Anarchism is inherently anti capitalist.

    Actual communism means there is no state (not that this is what most people mean when they say communism)

    Both anarcho-capitalism and totalitarian communism are oxymorons

    A lot of anarchists are communists. Anarchism is a way to communism (or some other form of non capitalist society). Anarchists are basically non statists socialists, where 'regular' socialists see the state as a means to an end. In socialist ideals the state would eventually go away (obviously this doesn't happen, as history shows. People in power never just give up their power).

  22. Surprised that this started well, but crashed and burned half way through.

    "[In anarcho-capitalism] whoever happens to have the resources, … is going to be able to oppress those" Completely unfounded and without any explanation.

    "I think it is a completely false notion that in an anarcho-capitalist system, you eliminate control from above, it will simply develop differently" What huh? Who is controlling then?

    "It will still not be a democratically elected system of control" Why is a majority voting on to impose their views on me or others a good or necessary thing?!?

    "All you need to do is look at this country to realize why capitalism even with government oversight" Capitalism?!? You mean the government controlling money, schools, food, housing, … etc, etc all while taking ~50% of my income. Yea that's totally capitalism.

  23. I really don't see how they'd be different. In an AnCap society, the most successful businesses would grow to monopolize their particular industries, which would eventually lead to corporations forming a de-facto government to protect their interests. With no prior power structure to oppose them, there'd be nothing stopping them from growing into a totalitarian regime.

    And once again, anarcho-socialism is swept under the rug. This guy should leave this particular debate to people like AnarchoPac.

  24. the checks and balance that we once had pretty much gone battered wife democrats and the TEApubs in the house and the bush five in the supreme court

  25. David is still green behind the gills. Under communism/socialism there is little to motivate people to work harder, to innovate. These systems ignore human nature which is why they are a total fail

  26. There are newer alternatives.  RBE.  While our system is failing the human species, and there are less and less freedoms anyway, it will be the capitalists who will point the finger at us when the system fails.  The ONLY way, as Jacques Fresco pointed out, is total separation of the systems.  OR have everyone on board, and that aint gonna happen.  We need our own planet in which to live in harmony and care for our environment, not how rich we can get from raping the planet.  Given the choice?  Knowing what I know?  Call me a pinko commie.  And not as you think of it, as total control of lives, just managing resources for the good of all.  We were all born here.  Right?

  27. By the way the "free market" does not provide improvements through research, development and manufacturing. Science and technology does that. Get it right and stop framing things in a biased way under the guise of a fare well balanced discussion. 

  28. Hierarchy is intrinsic to nature including human nature. Thinking that all hierarchy can be eliminated or should be is nothing short of sociopolitical infantalism.

    Why don't people on this channel admit to the truth that hierarchy will become "necessary" if you guys (or the likes of Chomsky) are ever at the top of it?

    Anarchy means no political hierarchy – not no hierarchies at all.

    Hierarchy exists in the size of planets orbiting the sun with Jupiter at the top. Hierarchy exists in a bee colony with the queen at the top. A sports team has a hierarchy, the church, the Boy Scouts… every system in nature (human or otherwise) is part of some kind or kinds of order and hierarchy. Why waste your time railing against reality?

    A political arrangement though is an abstraction and every anarchist (regardless of stripe) must accept that there can and should be no political hierarchy. That doesn't extend to social, economic or cultural human domains. Like the Scarecrow of Oz, if you folks could only just get a clue…

  29. Totalitarian "communism" is inherently capitalist -the state has full dictatorship over the means of production whereas workers must bow down and submit, with no rights at all. "Anarcho"-Capitalism is inherently totalitarian -capitalists have full dictatorship over the means of production whereas the working class must bow down and submit, with no rights at all (even if it's "voluntary"). 

    The real dichotomy is totalitarian capitalism vs anarcho-communism. 

  30. i think anarcho-capitalism and totalitarian communism would be almost equally bad.

    anarcho syndicalism makes much more sense. the idea is that all people affected by a decision should be part of making that decision. it implies that you need different systems of representative democracy and direct democracy working on different levels. so a representative parliamentary democracy would be highly consistent with anarcho syndicalism, especially if its split up into a federal level, state level, and regional level, with city councils, and has elements of direct democracy on different levels. anarcho syndicalists dont like the system in the USA, because the elections are not representative, therefore dont even really qualify as "elections". apart from plain and simple representative democracy with checks and balances, i like anarcho syndicalism the most, it provides clear answers, but can still account for all the complexities you get in reality. also, the nations that do best and prosper are the ones where anarcho-syndicalists see the least problems.

    take the EU for example: anarcho-syndicalists would be fine with that, as long as its legitimized by representative democracy, and only deals with issues that really affect all of the EU. so the biggest problem they see with the EU is that it often overreaches into natuional/regional issues, and that the EU comission is not legitimate, and much too powerful. but the EU parliament, which is elected by all EU citizen in a representative system, would be much more agreeable for anarcho-syndicalists.

  31. I have often tried to make the point to libertarians that if you replace the government (the government of the people) entirely by corporations (governments of the shareholders) then you still have a controlled economy. Even in very flawed democracies the government does to some extend represent the people whereas corporations do not, nor are they supposed to. Libertarians argue that the free market would discipline corporations because that's what the laissez-faire economic textbooks say but I have yet to see concrete evidence for this. The fact that we live in a world with limited resources means that those who control them can control those who need the resources and workers (wage, working conditions etc). Corporations with inferior products and services often thrive because people very often don't understand them nor are they capable of making informed decisions about them. Let's not forget that corporations want to survive and cut cost more than to deliver quality products and services and the humans in charge of them are often shortsighted.

  32. Registered Libertarian, Practicing Anarchist.    Common sense, common respect, compassion and ecologically sustainable economics based not on a fractional reserve system, from which human beings and animals are liberated from the tyranny of a few powerful men.    Total Adult Sovereignty.    Turn It Over!

  33. Wow, this guy is fucking retarded.

    He doesn't know shit about capitalism.

    The thing is that if a company "takes over", you can just boycott that company, you can't boycott a state.

  34. Today I finally became homeless, after waiting like the two million other of unemployed workers, for the senate to pass the unemployment extension bill. Since late last December, my benefits had run out, and after exhausting all savings, and maxing out all my credit cards to live, I lost the battle. I'm now living on the street, and sleeping where ever I can find a semi-safe place to rest at night. I'm over fifty, and have worked all of my life, never being unemployed, or having to survive on handouts from the government. I did all the right responsible things all my life, and this is where I end up. Why was it so difficult for the Republicans to lend the American people a hand, and pass that bill? When so many of tax payers dollars go to fund foreign aid and corporate welfare, and banking and airline bailouts. Where do we fit in to all this? Where do the majority of Americans fit into this country? I hope that the bill gets passed for all the families that are able to hang on more than I could. I don't know what's going to become of me now. Good luck everyone

  35. An "anarcho-capitalist" state would still require extensive taxation for the enforcement of taxation, contract law( courts ), property security( police/prisons ), monetary policy/anti-counterfeiting, defence, and probably union-busting. I think that's what David is referring to wrt new systems evolving… you know we print money through governments, yeah?

  36. Totalitarian Communism would be worse… because the only video game we'd have is Tetris on shitty IBMs and C64s… if the common people are going to be screwed over, we might as well have quality entertainment… on iPads

  37. The premise of the question is flawed.  Economies are not "on a spectrum" between Cap and Comm.  Obviously there are worthy values that neither system promotes, e.g. Equality, Solidarity, Workplace Democracy, Sustainability.  So the topic as framed is useless "flatland" economics, a false dichotomy.  c.f. parecon

  38. I think it's the place of democratically elected governments to rationally plan programs to be empirically tested in the real world rather than rely on "volunteers" or "charity" or "invisible hands" to clear up economic and political messes for us. Of course, there's an inherent danger in this attitude, and it's no mistake that Joseph Goebbels, commenting on FDR, spoke approvingly of the President's attempts to rationalize and plan an economy. Planned economies are a fixture of fascist political ideology, wherein the community is imagined to be an organic totality (totalitarianism) and in the case of Nazis an organic community based on race. This community is monitored from top to bottom by a will to power strong enough to maintain balance and social harmony by excising "foreign" elements threatening the organic community with decay. Planned economies are also a fixture of the communist totalitarianism of thinkers like Mao, Castro, and Stalin. But, to get the political object I'm analyzing as abstractly concrete as possible, if I were asked to decide between anarcho-capitalism and communist totalitarianism, I'd be hard-pressed to make a really meaningful distinction there either, except that power in an anarcho-capitalist system has the potential to disguise itself perhaps even better than States wearing their Statehood on their sleeve.

  39. The world always has been anarcho-capitalist. Our current rulers are just those inevitable oppressors that recursively gained power.
    In a more practical view, Anarcho-Syndicalism (Social Libertarianism) all the way. Atomizing us is what the oppressors want.

  40. Totalitarian Communism is an oxymoron.

    Totalitarianism is defined as a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.

    Communism advocates a stateless society. Stateless means a society that is not governed by a state. In stateless societies, there is little concentration of authority. Going by that definition, I guess the USSR, Cuba, and the rest of the "Communist countries" were not really Communist. Some would argue that they were "State Socialist."

    Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.

    Anarchism and Communism goes hand-in-hand.

  41. "All you need to do is look at this country and see that capitalism, even with government oversight and regulation, can still dominate the country"
    You don't think that, perhaps, it is the government that allows corporations to have so much control over us? Please stop referring to what we have now as "capitalism". We have a government imposing the will of corporations/ lobbyists on the people, and without an institution of government to impose violence on society, corporations wouldn't "dominate" society, like you say they do now.

  42. Anarcho-Capitalism = Somalia
    "Totalitarian" Communism= Cuba
    David is just another bleeding heart liberal who is too lazy to defend Marxism-Leninism, so he instead points to system he can attack to win cheap points for neo-cons the same way Rubin does for the Alt-Right.
    -Cuba has cured 10 strains of lung cancer, Created a vaccine that stops mothers with HIV from spreading it to their children.

    -Where ever communism has been implemented the state raises Literacy, Life Expectancy, and education. In Africa Congo-Brazzaville, Ethiopia , Tanzania,Nicaragua,Benin and etc have been proven examples of this. In fact when Congo-Brazzaville and Tanzania became Bourgeois democracies the people still elected the ruling Communist parties with 80% to 90% majorities.

    -Somalia represents where capitalism is pushed by reinforcing cultural norms leading to people killing each other where the rich in Somalia use clan identity to incentivize the working class to fight against their own interests. Just like how liberals, conservatives , and the alt-right use identity politics to divide the working class.*Divide Et Impera* , divide and conquer.

    -All polls also show that former Warsaw Pact countries including Albania and Yugoslavia poll that they would rather live under Communism than in a shitty Social Democracy or right-wing populism.

  43. Totalitarian communism is merely the flipside of totalitarian capitalism; where public ownership is abolished and even infrastructures are privatised. As such, movement is more restricted under totalitarian capitalism than totalitarian communism, because in communism's case, the roads, which belong to everyone, in theory, cannot toll for passage.

  44. Why? Why does everyone just jump to "anarcho capitalism will become a state because the rich will take control" or something like that. There is no evidence that this would happen in such a way. One forgets that people can over throw those who claim rule over them- very easily, even if this did occurr. Government doesnt really exist without people believing it does. Remember social contract? The fairy tale that government makes a silent pack that has no way of accountability for you and everybody with arbitrarily set borders?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *