The Case Against Radical Philosophy: Anarchism, Fascism, and Communism

the central question I want to address in this video is are anarchists anti status or members of radical political movements justified in their beliefs about the societies they advocate what do I mean by this question I mean are there sufficiently good reasons such that one can have justified belief that radical societies can plausibly exist more or less as they are imagined in this video I shall be arguing that this belief held by many anarchists communists fascists and other radicals is unjustified since many of my subscribers are anarchists I imagine this conclusion might make some people upset however in light of recent facts I think I am justified in my belief that all people who adhere to the methodology of radical politics and who believed that their ideal Society would resemble its practical implementation are unjustified in their belief let me begin by defining what I mean by radical political movements after this I will try to explain their methodology by radical political movements I mean any school of thought that believes and advocates for a non-existent future society that has never existed before in the past does not exist now and which also differs significantly in character from past and present societies examples of people who fit this description are anarchists communists socialists and fascists who believe in an ideal society not based on any historical precedence exceptions to this definition would be communists and socialists who want to return to historical socialism such as the USSR China or Cuba and fascist who want to return to historical fascism as existed in Nazi Germany and Italy what is the general methodology radicals used to invent their proposed society believe it or not their methodology is actually rather simple radicals start with the question given the set of values X what kind of society why can be imagined such that if why were implemented then X would be fulfilled and not X would be avoided for anarcho-capitalist in particular X is often though not always the non-aggression principle whereas not X is some form of aggression and caps invent an ideal society by trying to imagine what a society that consistently upheld the non-aggression principle will look like it is obvious that when radicals do such a thing they are deducing facts from their intuitions to fit a particular set of values and the facts they deduce purport to describe social behaviors on a massive scale what about myself for the past six years I could accurately be described as some kind of radical anarchist I should mention that when you hear me criticize anarchists and radicals I consider myself in the company of the guilty I did political philosophy by deducing the content of my intuition in an imagined thought experiment in this anarchist thought experiment I tried to imagine a society that was more or less consistent with my values as an anarchist whenever I was met with potential problem or inconsistency of anarchism the task then became to modify aspects of the idea to make it seem more consistent in this way the whole project essentially was trying to keep a bloated metaphysical thought experiment consistent with my beliefs and values but enough about me let's move on to the argument against anarchism and all other radical political movements my argument goes as follows premise 1 we are justified in believing that non existent future societies invented through intuitive thought experiments would exist as they are imagined if and only if there is good reason to believe that human intuition is a reliable guide to large-scale social organization premise 2 there is good reason to believe that human intuition is a we'll guide to wide-scale social organization if and only if the way that radical societies are envisioned is highly analogous to the actual implementation of those societies premise 3 the way radical societies are envisioned aren't highly analogous to the actual implementation of those societies conclusion therefore we are not justified in believing that non existent future societies invented through intuitive thought experiments would exist as imagined let me break down and explain each of these premises the first premise states we are justified in believing that radical societies invented through intuitive thought experiments would exist as imagined if and only if there is good reason to believe that human intuition is a reliable guide to wide scale social organization why would this be the case the reason is because justified belief necessarily requires reliability if I am justified in my belief that all copper conducts electricity then such a belief must be reliable in other words it must be the case that many instances of copper are consistently observed conducting electricity if copper was observed to generally not conduct electricity then we would say that my belief that all copper conducts electricity is unjustified because it is not reliable the second premise states there is good reason to believe that human intuition is a reliable guide to wide-scale social organization if and only if the way radical societies are envisioned happened to be highly analogous to the actual implementation of those societies this premise seems fairly straightforward it essentially states that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the reliability of non existent future societies that emerge from human intuition are high levels of similarity between the imagined society and the actual implementation of such a society if there is a strong dissimilarity between the proposed society and the actual society that we really can't say that such a belief is reliable at all imagine a radical who created a thought experiment about a non-existent future society with full employment imagine this radical wholeheartedly believed that if such a society was implemented it would have full employment now imagine that every time the society was implemented it possessed a nearly 50 percent unemployment rate this would be a huge difference between how society was supposed to be and how it actually is if this happened we would say that the radicals intuited believe was an unreliable guide to large-scale social behaviors the third and final premise states non-existent future societies are envisioned in a way that is not highly analogous to the actual implementation of such societies one might wonder why the practical implementation of ideal societies doesn't resemble the ideal one might also wonder what actual evidence supports this view to address the first question the answer is simple the scope of the environmental cultural and biological variables in society is so vast as to be beyond comprehension there are billions upon billions of variables we cannot even imagine or comprehend a million men walking together in a single direction a very simple pattern let alone hundreds of millions of people interacting and complex and not well understood ways inevitably when we use our intuitions to create an ideal society we are creating a highly simplified and empirically untested model of human behavior which could never fully capture the true complexity of the millions of cultural biological and environmental variables that they'd the functioning of society also if we examine the empirical evidence for the levels of similarity between ideal societies proposed throughout history and their attempted implementation we see huge amounts of dissimilarity the reality is so horribly deformed an unintelligent it appears to be little more than a crude Kartika Chur of the idealized supposition but what's the real evidence we can start our investigation by looking at the history of attempts organizing utopian socialist communes in North America between 1800 and 1900 during this period there were no fewer than 25 major attempts to create utopian socialist societies utopian socialism was a radical political movement whose proponents used their intuitions to deduce many facts about human society and human behavior one of the views that proponents intuited was the idea that human nature was fundamentally plastic adherence to this view of socialism also believed that men and women could be made voluntarily to live in harmonious societies where individuals would rise above petty self-interest to work for the good of all compensation was to follow the maxim of equality everyone would essentially be paid the same wage private property would be abolished and all property would be held in common proponents of utopian socialism believed that the implementation of their society would lead to a more rational and technologically advanced society with more overall wealth for all sadly for the Socialists however every single attempt to create a utopian socialist style commune in North America either resulted in total economic failure and bankruptcy or outright incorporation ie the more successful of the communes totally abandoned their Galit Aryan and socialist roots and became profit seeking corporations it is no stretch to say that the total economic failure or outright abandonment of socialism in 25 major experimental iterations of utopian socialism is a massive dissimilarity between the rosy suppositions of utopian socialism and the actual reality of implementing the ideas to see further evidence of the unreliability of our intuitions we can look at the history of Marxism now Marx contrasting the utopian socialist envision socialism as a society under the dictatorship of the proletariat the proletariat was imagined to rise up and seize the means of production and the state during a class struggle the proletariat under socialism would then use their newfound power to root out and destroy the capitalist relics and to reorganize society to be run by and for the workers the workers would be supposedly when they would supposedly run society in accordance with a maximum from each according to his ability to each according to his needs Marx also predicted a crisis of capitalism in which the ranks the proletariat would swell as capitalist exploitation and the progression of Technology men being replaced by machines created unemployment a worldwide class war would emerge between the proletariat in the blue jersey in which the proletariat would triumph and thus would begin the inevitable transition from global capitalism to global socialism and then from socialism to communism in accordance with the supposed unclad materia slaws of history communism would be a technologically advanced classless society in which there was to be a super abundance of everything so that every member of the society would have the freedom to work at his or her own leisure now in every recorded communist experiment the reality was nearly the exact opposite of what Marx envisioned there was no crisis of CAP ilysm no workers rebellion there was no total global transition from capitalism to socialism just the opposite in fact furthermore in the communist countries that did emerge USSR China Cuba etc there was no classes society a wealthy elite bureaucratic class often referred to as the nomenclature ax in the Eastern Bloc emerged and dominated both the state and the proletariat so much for the proletarian dictatorship there was also no super abundance of goods and no superb technological progression either communist countries were notorious for lagging far behind their Western capitalist counterparts in both these areas moreover with the possible exception of North Korea all communist governments throughout history have either failed in transition to capitalism or have compromised socialism by implementing severe market reforms abolishing most price controls and privatizing large swathes of state industry if that doesn't convince you we can look at a fundamental a priori supposition of economics that has pervaded the discipline for much of the 20th century this evidence further supports the third premise that our intuitions are not a reliable guide to human social organization the idea in question is the concept of Homo economicus or perfectly rational actors this essentially was a view of human nature that characterized all humans as fundamentally rational beings who consistently pursue their own self-interest by always seeking to maximize their own individual utility we now know that this view of human nature is incorrect we know from laboratory experiments and common-sense observation that humans are not perfectly rational utility maximizing beings first it has been shown experimentally that humans let irrelevant information in your fear width and influence their utility calculations furthermore there have also been experiments demonstrating that human beings freely make choices that do not lead to their best expected payoff it should be obvious that neither of these facts is consistent with the idea that humans are perfectly rational finally we can look to the history of anarchist experiments to support this idea there are exactly three very large-scale experiments that are generally thought of as being largely anarchistic in character that occurred throughout history these are the Paris Commune the maker vistas in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution and the anarchists in Catalina and Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War all three experiments were crushed by a superior military force all three were plagued by rampant inflation negative GDP growth high unemployment and large numbers of people injured or killed now obviously a society crushed by force which has rampant inflation economic recession high employment and widespread death is not what anarchists envision in their ideal society not to be fair many of these unfortunate facts were caused by confounding variables for instance every single example was also a civil war however this still means that there was a high level of dissimilarity between the imagine society and the reality it also means that there is virtually no positive evidence for the superior benefits of such a society radical political philosophy takes an a priori estilo of politics they start with the values they want to see realized and proceed to build a mental model that seems to fulfill these values I think this is absolutely the wrong way to do political philosophy a truly scientific or analytic view of a political philosophy would do just the opposite they would use induction and not deduction a good scientist or wise analytic philosopher would begin by saying given the set of values X what kind of society has existed in the past such that we can draw the inference that implementing Y would fulfill X and avoid not X given that Y has done so in the past this is the way I think political philosophy ought to be done this is essentially the way we do science why should politics be special another good example that is largely but not totally analogous to the radical political movements is the history of futurism like radicals futurists try to predict what a future society would look like by relying on their intuitions now to clarify I'm not talking about industry insiders who make inductive predictions predictions based on data for example a software engineer working on a basic voice-recognition software program in the early 90s who predicts that within 20 years that there will be voice recognition software able to recognize slow clear human speech this is not what I'm talking about I'm talking about predictions largely based on mental models which are not really based on data there are a long history of failed intuitive futurist predictions about society here are a few examples of predictions that have obviously failed in 1977 ken Olsen the president chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation said quote there is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home in 1989 Bill Gates the former CEO and founder of Microsoft said quote we will never make a 32-bit operating system in 1920 the New York Times said quote a rocket will never be able to leave the Earth's atmosphere Robert Macallan an American physicist and Nobel Prize winner and 1923 said quote no scientific bad boy will ever be able to blow up the world by releasing atomic energy Lord Kelvin a world-renowned mathematical physicist in near and the inventor of the Kelvin scale said in 1899 quote x-rays will prove to be a hoax in 1974 five years before she became Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said it will be years not in my time before a woman will become Prime Minister right before the stock market crash of 1929 Irving Fisher a professor of economics at Yale University said quote stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high put – in the year 2000 congressman Ron Paul said we can soon expect a major downward correction in the housing industry prompted by rising interest rates as we note as we now know the crash didn't come until eight years later and was marked by record low interest rates Alyx LeWitt a president of the vacuum cleaner company LeWitt Corp told the New York Times in 1955 nuclear powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality in ten years renowned British journalists and author John Davies said in 1936 quote democracy will be dead by 1950 just before the start of World War two British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said for the second time in our history a British prime minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour I believe it is a peace for our time if this doesn't convince you that our intuitions are unreliable guides let me provide a final example this narrative comes from carl menger in his 1892 journal article titled on the origin of money mangers explanation has become the orthodox eken economic explanation for the origins of money if you read any introductory textbook to economics you will undoubtedly find a chapter on the origin of money directly inspired by minger manga and economics tells us that before the onset of currency all primitive human societies began as barter economies they argue that these primitive economies experienced a market inefficiency known as the problem of the double coincidence of wants the argument goes like this for two people to voluntarily trade through barter both parties must by coincidence want what the other has if one party does not want what the other has then trade cannot occur this means that if I have something you want but but I don't want what you have to trade me then you will have to find someone else to trade for an item that I want before you can then trade me for what you want this inefficiency of barter drastically increases transaction costs it means that even simple trades and barter economies can potentially require dozens of costly transactions minger argues that currency economies emerged after barter economies to solve this problem currency is a medium of exchange the value of all goods can be measured in terms of currency thus currency allows people to exchange diverse goods directly which allows us to overcome the problem of the double coincidence of wants mangers argument is highly convincing I was convinced of it at myself one point there is just one problem with the argument mangers argument was based purely on his intuitions about what he thought primitive societies must have looked like Menger and economists who argued this point literally have no empirical evidence to support the idea that human societies began as barter economies and then transitioned to money based economies Caroline Humphries a professor of anthropology at Cambridge describes the lack of evidence as follows quote no example of a barter economy pure and simple has ever been described what alone the emergence from it of money all available ethnography suggests that there has never been such a thing moreover the anthropological evidence suggests the exact opposite it turns out that human society started as primitive hunter-gatherer societies the evidence that those early human societies had gift economies based on collective ownership and reciprocity and did not have barter economies thus again the evidence suggests that our intuitions are not reliable guides to the massive social organization of persons if you are still not convinced I have five additional arguments against radical political philosophy and its method of deducing facts from an imagined society these arguments shall be framed in terms of five problems the first problem is the fallacy of wishful moral thinking there are many people who accept anarchism or are a part of some other radical political movement for moral reasons for instance somebody might be an anarchist because they believe that this kind of society is the best or perhaps the only moral Society people like this implicitly or explicitly believe that anarchism isn't some fantasy or delusion but has the very real possibility of being implemented such a view is problematic however this is because it is essentially the fallacy of a wishful thinking it does not follow from the fact that why believes desires or wishes X that acts will therefore occur Christians in particular believe that homosexuality is immoral yet it exists they also believe that it is moral to give to charity but yet many people don't likewise it doesn't follow from the fact that anarchism or some other radical political system is supposedly the most moral system that it therefore can be realized practically the second problem I shall call the problem of false analogies to bolster the legitimacy of their claim societies radicals often reference historical examples of their proposed society anarcho-capitalists in particular are often fond of referencing medieval Ireland and medieval Iceland as examples of the kind of society they propose now first of all the claim that any of these societies was ever dateless or anarchists or poly centrist is highly dubious to begin with medieval Ireland actually had a king and medieval Iceland had hereditary elites that had the power to compel military service furthermore medieval Iceland's court system contained a court known as the fifth court which had the power to overrule all other courts many people consider anarchism to imply polycentric law however this is clearly an example of mono centric law but even if we ignored these inconvenient details there is still a problem anarchists who are by no means the only radicals that do this use medieval Ireland and Iceland as an analogy many anarchists claim that anarchism or polycentric law could reasonably be expected to exist in the future because the future could be like the past examples of medieval Ireland and medieval Iceland the problem with this is comparing a medieval society to any modern society would be completely unaware the analogues of the current United States with medieval Ireland and Iceland the United States constitutional republic modern industrial economy enforces judicial decisions highly connected highly interdependent technologically advanced large diverse population secular government secular culture comparatively wealthy modern culture large educated population service economy large military bans on slavery this is completely different from medieval Ireland and Iceland medieval Ireland and Iceland monarchy / Federation of elites primitive agrarian economy didn't enforce judicial decisions highly isolated self-sufficient technologically primitive small homogeneous population religious culture religious government comparatively poor primitive culture uneducated population subsistence agricultural economy small military permit slavery as we can see it would be erroneous to infer that because so-called anarchist medieval Iceland and Ireland existed in the past that anarchism or polycentric law could exist in a future post-industrial society this is because the two situations are absolutely not analogous as many different relevant things are true of them so the analogy is false and the conclusions are unwarranted by contrast social anarchists often point to the examples of the Paris Commune and the Spanish Civil War as examples of anarchism they claim that social anarchism could reasonably be expected to exist in the future because it has existed in the past however this view is extremely problematic presumably anarchists don't think that their society if implemented would be quickly crushed by force however virtually all anarchist experiments were hastily destroyed and crushed by force including both the Paris Commune and the Spanish Civil War therefore this analogy is false because it extrapolates something in the past which never occurred I II not being crushed on to the future in addition to this problem there is a related problem I like to call the impotent analogy problem the problem goes like this members of radical political movements want to significantly change the status quo the only reason radicals want to change the status quo is because they believe that there are other forms of social and economic organization that offer significantly greater benefits relative to the status quo things like more economic growth more social cohesion less crime a greater level of happiness less pollution etc why is this problematic this is problematic because to justify the idea that non existent future societies would be better than the status quo radical political movements use historical examples anarchists used medieval Ireland medieval Iceland the Paris Commune the Spanish and the Spanish Civil War fascists used Nazi Germany and Italy and Communists and socialists used the USSR China and Cuba but what's wrong with these examples as analogies in addition to the fact that these examples are from a completely different era not one of these examples had a higher standard of living than first world countries at the time or today there is no evidence that medieval Ireland or Iceland generally had a better standard of living than other European states furthermore if we look at states from the same period there is good evidence that the Eastern Roman Empire known as the Byzantine Empire had a significantly higher standard of living than either Ireland or Iceland if we look at the Paris Commune we see massive inflation class warfare and eventually the murder of tens of thousands of common arts who participated in the experiment in the Spanish Civil War we saw half a million soldiers and civilians killed Spain experienced hyperinflation massive unemployment the destruction of its economy rampant disease and the utter obliteration of many homes businesses and cities the USSR in communist China experienced repeated famines several million people died in famines in the Ukraine and over 40 million people died from famine and mismanagement that occurred during Mao's Great Leap Forward in communist China furthermore China the USSR and Cuba experienced lower rates of economic growth pitifully lackluster per capita GDP and an extremely low standard of living for its citizens relative to other liberal democracies and constitutional republics if we look at fascist States like Nazi Germany and Italy we see that during the entirety of their existence both states spirits average yearly GDP growth that was negative furthermore both states were the instigators of world war ii which caused the near total destruction of europe untold millions of germans and italians were brutalized and killed because of the policies of these fascist regimes plus both countries were entirely destroyed in the process thus all of these historical examples do not seem prima facie to afford any significant benefit over the status quo not one of these examples demonstrates a superior quality of life relative to first world states existing at the same time period this is why I call these analogies impotent because they extrapolate a kind of past success which never actually occurred on to the future thus not only are these analogies false but they're also highly unimpressive lastly radical political movements can be successfully argued against with the principle of parsimony also known as Occam's razor the principle states that when two theories explain something equally well the theory that makes the fewest number of assumptions is probably correct this is because the theory with a fewest number of assumptions has the smallest probability that any of those assumptions will be false the more assumptions of theory has the greater the likelihood that one of those assumptions will be false radical political movements are notoriously on large numbers of assumptions not only do these movements rely on huge numbers of assumptions but all of these assumptions are completely untested and it's really just pure speculation on the part of the radicals themselves because I'm more familiar with anarchism let me focus on anarchism to assume an anarchist society might plausibly exist in the future we need to assume a large number of primary assumptions and untold thousands of secondary assumptions to us that anarchism can possibly exist in a way that is better than the status quo ie the United States we at very least have to assume the following list of primary assumptions one the free-rider problem of national defense will somehow have to be overcome to hostile neighboring states will somehow be prevented from invading three polycentric legal agencies will generally cooperate with each other for polycentric legal agencies will uphold a consistent set of property norms five polycentric legal agencies will be able to implement laws that overcome collective action problems such as roads the tragedy of the Commons fire protection pollution control of the airwaves etc six polycentric legal agencies will agree and enforce laws that incentivize innovation ie addresses the issues of intellectual property trademarks and patents seven police and rogue legal agencies will not systematically fall into conflicts with one another eight anarchism will grant people a higher life expectancy nine anarchism will grant people more per capita income ten anarchism will experience less pollution eleven anarchism will grant people a higher level of happiness twelve anarchism will lead to less crime 13 a state will be prevented from emerging within the stateless territory 14 the nuclear arsenal of the US will not be used to destroy or threaten the newly emerged anarchist Society or its neighbors 15 there will not be a massive worldwide trade embargo against the anarchists now with just one primary assumption I can argue that anarchism cannot plausibly exist in the future I can do this simply by assuming newly emerged anarchist societies will be invaded and crushed by hostile States this assumption seems especially reasonable as three large anarchist experiments have been destroyed by hostile states with superior militaries the Paris Commune was destroyed by the French army Nestor Mako and the anarchists in the Ukraine were crushed by the Red Army and the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War were crushed by the combined armies of Francisco Franco Nazi Germany and Italy now the principle of parsimony tells us that the theory that makes this smallest number of assumptions is probably correct since a three against anarchism or radical politics can assume just one primary assumption and since anarchism requires no less than 15 primary assumptions the theory that anarchism cannot exist in the future is more likely to be true now the principle of parsimony doesn't merely deflate anarchism it deflates all radical political movements the theories that all of these movements rely on have dozens of primary assumptions and thousands of secondary assumptions there are very few ways for these theories to go right but plenty of ways for them to go wrong thus parsimony dictates that radical politics is probably a pipe dream best relegated to the dustbin of history

  1. occams razor is not a valid argument it was made to say ridicolous thigns like" the pope is not possessed by the devil but he is the antichrist himself!"

  2. actualy i disagree the driving force of ww2 was soviet union by being a threat, and well expansionit in nature, the national socialists expansion was only insofar german needs were concerned aka uniting all german terretorys and eventualy taking land from russia which is even doubtable as if russia wasn't soviet it would not even given reason for the ri of fascists

  3. damn this channel seems to be good i like

    also nice you point ou that feudalism is the best and only true libertarian system of government.

  4. Now that we know Democracy is a Utopian system that doesn't work this is a great argument for a radical return to a tried-and true system. This post brought to you by the monarchist gang.

  5. I see a lot of attacks on the examples given but no real analysis of the actual philosophical content.

    The problem with the argument isn't with the examples but with premise 1. The author considers the validity of a philosophical doctrine to be dependent on thought experiments, whereas in truth for any worthwhile theory these come as secondary justifications. Thought experiments should not be seen as the philosophical doctrine itself, rather one argument which may support said argument.

    Consider Rawls who is perhaps the most famous modern political philosopher who also focuses largely on thought experiments in his philosophy. While his use of a thought experiment is key in understanding his work it's use it not there to create a society but rather to highlight a logical construction of his ideas.

    The problem the author faces doesn't go further than his logical argument which rests on false premises.

  6. The only reason why this article still feels "feel good" intead of hitting home as a criticism of my anarchism, and why it's very easy to side with every argument made, is that my anarchism is not based on forming any kind of ideal society to begin with. I don't have any plans for how government should be structured, at all. That's why I stop short of tearing down any kind of government completely. I just think society should have a general attitude against government and constantly work toward tearing down ideas that have proven to hurt people, and to keep people from hurting each other, and that individuals should generally try to help each other survive and accomplish our goals. Society is something that survives people like me bathing it in acid if it's worthy.

  7. My prediction about the future, based on economic theory and current evidence, is that more things will be done by markets in the future than the in present. Taking the liberty of extrapolating this trend, the implied result is the obsolescence of central planning, i.e. statelessness. Because intentional secession tends to get crushed, I wouldnt expect anarchy to arise in practice that way. I think the more reasonable possibility is simply that technology and the way society works will relegate the institution of the state to the dustbin of history.

  8. The trend towards market reforms around the world as you mentioned and the trend of reducing crime rates and violence worldwide is empirical evidence of a sort that peaceful interaction does actually improve a society generally. It's being selected for naturally due to its success, supplanting centralized power structures. We don't need a totally voluntary stateless market society to prove the rule that markets actually do work best.

  9. Money is a praxeological concept. Epistemologically speaking, no empirical evidence could prove money came before barter or vice versa. Menger's explanation of money was not a description of an actual good being circulated, but as a logical category of purposeful action: money is the most marketable good amongst a number of persons who must already be trading with one another.

  10. Empirical evidence of a failed society does not explain why it failed. However, a priori synthetic deductive reasoning can. Inferences from induction has the same epistemological problems as making specific predictions about future societies.

  11. Barely a minute in, we hear an equivocation that invalidates the premise of the case. "Radical" only means fringe, outlier or highly unusual. There is no methodology of "radicalism" such that it could be flawed and so expose flaws in so-called radical political philosophies.

    Anarchism does not posit a society like fascists and communists do. On the contrary, it proposes the rejection on an ethical basis of the means typically employed by actual ideologues to engineer society as they prefer – the state. By opposing the state, anarchists are doing the opposite of proposing a utopia; we are merely pointing out how the state is an aberration in society contradictory to the way human society actually ends up working; and that it survives only by the propagation of fear, superstition, tradition, and pseudoscientific economics, which happen to be at the bottom of all statists ideals, "moderate" or "radical".

  12. This video does not sufficiently treat Anarchist Spain. It was not the fault of Anarchism that Anarchist Spain lasted only three years. Anarchist Spain was smashed by reactionary Fascist forces. That does not mean that anti-authoritarian Communism (Direct democracy, Anarchism) could not succeed given the right circumstances. The many deaths were a product of the civil war, and cannot be blamed on Anarchism per se.

  13. 1. Before social democracy, the people who formulated it using their intuition imagined it would be a solution to the issues of inequality etc.

    2. Democracy led to politicians buying votes with money borrowed from everyone else, rising national debts, huge busts in the economy, and a mathematically certain end to the the whole system

    3. Social democrats are idealistic radicals who got it wrong

  14. I'm no ancap, but do explain which hostile neighboring state is going to crush the US? The US is a continental scale country with a 3rd world southern neighbor with limited land border and has a pacifist neighbor to the north with 10% of the US population. If ancapistan can work anywhere (in terms of defense), it's the US.

  15. National Socialism was not Fascism. But in addition to that, you are completely wrong about the success of NS compared to the west. While the rest of the western world was mired in depression with unemployment rates of 25% (US, for example), Germany, under NS obtained full employment and German citizens greatly improved their standard of living compared to the entire experience of The Weimar Republic. While I wouldn't want to live under National Socialism, it's downfall was the military adventures of Hitler. In fact, I believe had Hitler stopped at Czechoslovakia, The Third Reich would have simply faded away over time and become a constitutional monarchy or possible democracy. You are completely wrong about Italy and Germany starting the war. The war didn't even start in Europe, it started in Asia. Furthermore, ignoring Italy's invasion of Ethiopia and The Spanish Civil War and putting the start of the European theater of war with the invasion of Poland, it was actually Germany and The SU. Italy did not get involved until the summer of 1940. It is also extremely likely that had The US not helped The SU, Germany would have defeated the Soviets. The SU lost their major oil fields and their main food producing areas very early in the war. The Soviets could not have bought enough oil and food to keep it's army going. Had Hitler considered Japan, he could have promised to share the oil with Japan if Japan also attacked from the east. This was probably the single biggest blunder of the entire war.

  16. Im anti-communist, and im not "an cap" but I find all your theory pretty much twisted, for example "giving to charity is moral and not everybody gives therefore the most moral system cannot be realized pratically" this is twisted to a level that almost blows my brain up, those systems are designed and based on a certain moral ground but the system is made precisely NOT TO DEPEND ON PEOPLE ACTING MORALY, that is why it is a politically cohercive system (or its opposite), so your association of ideas is twisted to a level that is even hard to explain I admit. But that was just one example.

Leave a Reply

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