What Was Liberalism? #4 Three Problems with Liberalism | Philosophy Tube

Welcome back. In Episode 1 we talked about liberal ideology, and in Episode 2 we talked about the history of liberalism and capitalism,
before in Episode 3 talking about neoliberalism. I strongly recommend watching those videos first, as without them you won’t really understand what we’re gonna be talking about today. In this final part of the series we’re gonna be talking about the big problems of liberalism. The first problem is that once Liberalism
is established it has a tendency to slide to the right wing. It does this for two reasons.
Firstly, it places a lot of emphasis on freedom, particularly freedom of speech, and tolerating a diversity of opinions – though as we’ve seen by now it does make exceptions. And that’s all cool, and freedom of speech is great. However, that does make liberalism very susceptible to propaganda. Philosophers like John Rawls and Karl Popper
did work on this: it’s called the Paradox of Tolerance. What do we do if we want to
be tolerant but somebody is expressing a viewpoints that are themselves intolerant, even to the extent that they’re incompatible with liberalism? But actually, academic philosophers were beaten
to the punch on this question by actual fascists. Nazi philosopher Karl Schmitt realised that in a liberal society like interwar Germany the Nazis could disguise their propaganda
as “Just another political viewpoint” and so demand that their “viewpoint” be
heard. Even though they weren’t really debating using facts and reason at all, because they were spreading propaganda, they could take advantage of the liberal love of tolerance and free speech to spread their ideology under the RADAR, pretending to value liberalism even whilst preparing
its destruction. And that’s exactly what
happened. And something similar is happening with right-wing groups now: I’ve talked before on the show about how white supremacist propaganda works these days, and ContraPoints
has an excellent video on how white supremacists, or “the Alt-Right” as they call themselves,
spread propaganda under the guise of liberal free speech. And liberals will help them do it: interview them, offer them platforms, complain when Leftists shut them down, without really digging into the ideologies on either side. There’s a reason that certain YouTube channels who bill themselves as “Classical Liberals,” – not naming any names or calling anyoneout or anything – have found over the years that they get a lot of attention from the far right. That’s because fascists know that they can count on liberals to give them the room to grow and recruit. But maybe it’s harsh to say that’s a fatal
problem with Liberalism: we could in theory counter that by educating people about how propaganda works and how to stop it. But liberalism enables the right wing in a second way, a more powerful way too, by being so linked with capitalism. I wanna make it clear that this point is entirely separate from any critique of capitalism: you could be the most hardcore Ayn Rand-loving capitalist and it would still be true that liberalism’s alliance with capitalism causes it to slide to the right. As explained in Episode 2, liberalism exists
to justify capitalism. Left wing ideologies like socialism are incompatible with capitalism. But capitalism is compatible with fascism. And so, liberalism slides right a lot easier than it slides left. As an example, let’s look at capitalism
under some right-wing regimes. Ever hear of Zyklon B, the gas that was used in the gas chambers in the Holocaust? Well Zyklon is a brand name, not a chemical name: the Nazis bought Zyklon B from corporate manufacturers, mainly a company called Degussa, which also processed the gold fillings of a lot of the people who were murdered. Degussa is still running today as a subsidiary of
the Evonik corporation. Now obviously a lot of capitalist businesses that were run by Jews were shut down by the Nazis, but a lot of Gentile capitalists and rich folks and Liberals slid to the right and supported Hitler because he opposed the socialists who were challenging their profits. Even though Hitler’s party were called the National Socialists the name was deliberately misleading; the Nazis actually hated socialists and actually killed quite a lot of them. As another example: in the USA in the 60s
Black Panthers like Kwame Ture noticed that a lot of American white :iberals were willing to go to bat for racial segregation. Despite their apparent commitment to freedom, Ture’s diagnosis
was that a lot of white American Liberals got economic stability from the status quo and so they were more likely to side with white supremacist capitalists than they were with a black socialist like MLK. And another example, Ronald Reagan, to name just one US president, provided military and financial aid to Guatemalan governments that were routinely murdering civilians in their thousands because those governments presented themselves as anti-Communist: against the far-Left. We’re still seeing this today in the resistance
a lot of Liberals have to even mildly socialist politicians like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy
Corbyn Vs the apparent willingness of the US Republican Party and British Conservative
Party (who are still Liberal with a Capital L) to be soft on white supremacists and form
coalitions with anti-LGBT, anti-women’s rights creationists. This happens because
Liberalism supports capitalism, and capitalism goes where the money is. The second problem with Liberalism is that it’s wrong about how human beings make decisions. Liberalism, especially neoliberalism, likes to imagine that human beings are individual rational decision-makers. There’s the focus on individualism, which we talked about in Episode 1, and also this idea that the best outcome will happen if everybody pursues their own rational self-interest. That idea goes all the way back to Adam Smith, and is key to the way that Liberals imagine people navigate the free markets that they support. Again, there are two problems with this. The
first is that model of the rational, self-interested decision maker is too reductionist: even if
Adam Smith was right that the best result would happen if everyone did that, the point
is kindof moot because people don’t make decisions like that. You can read all sorts
of psychology and economics books that’ll show you this, in fact I’ve listed a couple
I recommend in the description. At the very least, it’s not as simple as hardcore Liberalism presumes it is. Second, yes people can make decisions but
the focus on individual decision-making ignores any kind of systemic analysis. One of the
best examples I’ve ever seen on this comes from Helene Shugart, who talks about the way
we decide what to eat. Yes, individuals make decisions, but the options from which we can
choose are often shaped by forces well beyond individual control: for instance, lobbying.
In the USA, government subsidies for crops like corn mean that a lot of cheap, unhealthy
oils and sugars enter the food supply and attempts to change that have to confront the
fact that Big Corn, as funny a phrase as that is, is a powerful lobby with a lot of influence
over government policy. So if we’re talking about things like obesity, which Shugart is,
the individualistic focus of liberalism is gonna stop us from understanding it. Food isn’t the only topic where this happens; maybe you can think of some others. The final problem is one that I’m only gonna talk about briefly, and it’s that liberalism supports capitalism.
In fact as we learned in Episode 2, Liberalism assumes capitalism, or it least
it always has done. So if there are problems with capitalism, Liberalism is gonna be
supporting and propping up those problems. This is not the place for a sustained critique of capitalism; in fact I’ve kindof already done that series already. And to be fair, a lot of capitalists don’t have a problem with capitalism. Not everyone thinks it’s bad. And because Liberalism exists to justify it a lot of Liberals don’t have an explicit problem with it either. But a lot of Liberals are aware that
capitalist energy production is rapidly destroying the planet; and that the poverty capitalism
enforces isn’t really necessary; and that once again capitalism is doing deals with the right wing. A lot of Liberals are worried that capitalism might not be able to survive the coming waves of automation; or they’ve noticed that although it generates a lot of wealth, that wealth tends to stay at the top; and some Liberals are even starting to notice that some of the so-called benefits of capitalism like providing innovation and keeping quality high and costs low are actually starting to undermine themselves in the long term. And if you’re one of the Liberal that’s noticed even one of these things – well whilst you’re critiquing capitalism, maybe you might wanna start having a look at liberalism as well…comrade? These problems are why I titled this series
‘What Was Liberalism?’ Not ‘What Is Liberalism?’ New ideologies are emerging now on the left, and white supremacist fascism is re-emerging on the right, which prompts the question, “What Will Come Next?” And that might just prove to be the most important
question of the 21st Century. I hope you’ve enjoyed this series. If you
did, I have a tip jar at Paypal.me/PhilosophyTube; think of it like me putting a hat round at
the end of the lecture. Or Patreon.com/PhilosophyTube is where you could make a monthly donation
to help me keep making videos like this one. And don’t forget to subscribe.


  1. I don't want to make you uncomfortable, Olly, but I think your work is quite acceptable, and hope you get reasonable amounts of praise for it.

  2. The Conservative Party is not liberal, it's conservative. For reference: see its opposition to civil and social liberties, and the prioritisation of order over freedom cough snoopers charter *cough*.
    Secondly, your assumption that all or even most liberals believe in unfettered market fundamentalism is absurd. May I remind you that Keynes was a liberal, in the social-liberal tradition. I guess the problem is that liberalism kinda 'won' during the 20th century, and so now you can find liberal positions of one kind or another in basically everyone in Europe and North America who isn't a fascist or stalinist, which allows you to point to anyone and say 'they hold some liberal positions and I dislike them therefore boo liberalism'. You concentrate on those on the right who hold generally economically liberal positions, but of course liberalism is also a major influence on the social and civil positions of much of the left. And of course even moderate socialists by and large support a capitalist system, just not the everyone-for-themselves capitalism of Friedman and Hayek.

  3. I learned about propaganda in 4th grade. My teacher went over several specific techniques used to make what would otherwise be clear BS appear sensible. It would be decades before I realized just how important that lesson was for me, not just in making me a more critical person but in recognizing how and why so many other people aren't.

  4. Man, you look so different since 2016… I though I had switched channels when I clicked another video 😛

    Great content too!

  5. These critiques are valid for contemporary mainstream liberalism, but they are not valid critiques of liberalism in general; All of these critiques can be addressed within a liberal framework, and you have offered no critique of the fundamental principles of liberalism, such as social contract theory. As such, if one finds the basics of liberalism compelling, as I do, then it makes far more sense to adopt a reformed liberalism, rather than completely abandoning the philosophy.

  6. Great series Olly, I am very impressed. However, one thing that didn't get mentioned in all this was the subject of the birth of neoclassical economics and the effect that had on both capitalism and liberalism. You could even go so far as to say that neoliberalism is the political wing of neoclassical economics and what we currently call capitalism is actually something else, something far worse. There is a whole fascinating story surrounding the abandonment of classical economics and the foundation of the Chicago School, which, though involving staggering sums of money and some not inconsiderable skulduggery, played out in the closing decade of the 19th Century in plain sight, being well documented, yet it's a subject that rarely sees the light of day, is generally avoided by political economists, and is largely treated like a bit of a hot potato in academic circles. I'd personally say it's well worth looking into, as it does shed a lot of light on the rather unfortunate path the 20th Century took and the mess we're in now. A good starting point would be the work of the American Economist Mason Gaffney, in particular a book he co-wrote called the Corruption of Economics.
    Anyway, perhaps you did cover this in your previous vids on capitalism, so I shall have to take a look at those, but, if you didn't, it is definitely worth considering for a future episode.

  7. You should do one on the word "capitalism". People seem to use it interchangeably as "usury money" and/or "free market". One can have individual liberty with extended free market and not have a usury money system with it's enforced poverty.

  8. 0:17

    Mm, or I will cuz I know that shit already & I'm just here to gather more evidence on this specific slice so that I can push back against "Blue wave-rs" online & IRL.

  9. "Liberalism supports capitalism, even when it does wrong," a summary of Western countries, like the USA, that supports repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia that kills journalists, and denies basic human rights.

  10. "Left wing ideologies like Socialism are incompatible with Capitalism"…I'd argue that the highest standards of living in the world are in countries with economic and social systems based on just such a hybrid.

  11. Such a shame that Russian national anthem is still the anthem of a brutal autocractic neoliberal state..  because if it wasn't, we could so co-opt it.

  12. Capitalism is destroying the planet? Liberals… "it's personal responsibility that's gonna save it! Don't drive to work!"

  13. My mother works for Degussa.

    I never…. knew. She never told me. There are BOOKS about their role in killing millions, but why the hell would I ever look into my mother’s company?

    This video hit me like a ton of bricks, that my mother, barely 40 years after the holocaust, was working as a chemist for the company that produced…..

    What kind of society IS this?

  14. The paradox of tolerance is nonsense.

    Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance just like love of hate is not love.

  15. "Liberalism exists to justify capitalism"… Really? Think you might want to study the history of the Enlightenment a bit more. There's also this little thing called science too. -_-

    PS: "…starting to notice…" You read some Adam Smith at some point, right? He spilled a lot of ink describing (in more detail of course) many of those problems with capitalism you list. You don't seem to get that liberalism isn't a utopian ideology. There are some neoliberals who are properly described as utopians IMO, but even there that is an unfortunately vocal and powerful fringe. Liberalism and the capitalist (or at least market-based) systems it supports are supposed to ADAPT. In fact, representative government (with free speech), an adversarial judicial system, science, and market-based economics are all adaptive systems!
    Ugh… The problems are real enough, but the entire fucking point of liberalism is to try and overcome those sorts of problems. How can you miss that? It's the foundational principle.

  16. Interesting series I don't agree that Communism and I presume leninism is the way to go or to replace Liberalism with it. I believe in improving Liberalism to meet the ideals that it claims, I also believe that automation is a good thing but in doing so we do need to have universal income then because at that point the job market will be drastically reduced

  17. the biggest problems I have with communism is that sorry, it doesn't work on the national level, and it doesn't for the same reason capitalism doesn't. No pure ideology does. A little bit of capitalism is needed, a little bit of communism, a little bit of socialism. It all comes down to the power dynamic, who has it, who wants it and how within the rules you can get it. Ideally, we would all work together, that would be best. Socialism for interactions, communism for needs, and capitalism for wants. As a new innovation because a need, say cell phones, then yes, everyone gets cell phones. Our food production belongs to the farmers, who are well, quite frankly never expected to pay for anything because they feed us. Housing at basic becomes a nice home where anyone can live with a stipend. Bring it. I want the person who doesn't want to work out of the workforce. Let them live a good and comfortable life outside of whatever. And to the people who do want to work? Work, make things, do things, let the capitalist tempt you with good money and fair treatment, and it is and will be both because you will always have the option of not working. This also lets new innovators take one of those basic houses and live there while they write the next novel, or code the next game, or inventing the next life saving whatever, etc.
    That's real choice, that's real freedom. Schools? free so the capitalist always knows the person they are highering has the best training and they don't have to do it. Medicine? Free that way the worker no matter the level is well enough to work. The paradox of tolerance? Not a paradox, everyone is allowed to say and discuss what they wish and ideas flow, right up until the idea you are selling is the cessation of the discourse. Nazi's love to talk about free speech, but they want to shut down anyone who disagrees with them. As soon as that happens you shut them out and down. Same with anyone who uses alternative facts. Oh no, we have to, as a group, make a value judgment.
    and above all? it will always e a fight for tomorrow. It will never be over. The state should give the individual every freedom posable and that includes the freedom to be a dumbass. But the entity? The group? The more powerful the group the more rules it has to follow.

  18. Liberal, here. Positive about it now.

    Capitalism is here to stay, I'm positive. There is no reason we can't steal socialist ideas and wedge them into a capitalist system, though.

    Perhaps, as technology advances, labor will become less and less necessary, weakening the system enough for broader changes toward further altruism.

    I reason that we have, as far as living conditions go, only spiraled ever upward, as science makes easy what once was great effort. That things, so long as we keep having the debate, will inevitably improve for the average human.

    The clause of liberalism that allows for exceptions, I think, is it's strongest selling point. We human beings have a dreadful habit of drawing hard lines, and the humility implied in denying the absolute, this way, by literally allowing us to "pick and choose" appeals to me.

    I'm inclined to believe that socialism is a competitive system to capitalism, not an ideology itself. It's basically a combination of altruistic principle, Marxist revisionism, and watered down capitalism. Still smacks of Darwin, to me, since average human behavior is independent to the principles of economics. People do not live in the stock market.

    Still works, then. Just requires, from liberals, that we make exceptions.

  19. I know this video series is like 2 years old but I only found your channel a few months ago so I'm catching up.

    This series really made me think about the education I received growing up in Texas. Capitalism was always shown to be inherently good and right and I always took issue with the fact that it assumed people make decisions based on their own self interest. I remember being younger and thinking that lots of people do nice things because they're nice, but I didn't realize this was in contrast with the assumptions of our economy. As I got older I realized that even if that assumption were true, individuals would have to have as much information as was necessary to make informed decisions under capitalism. Knowing even just a little bit about our healthcare system, for example, led me to believe that not only the system fall short of informing consumers of the risks and benefits of making certain purchases within the system (price transparency is a big problem in healthcare in the US), but it seemed likely that that was a deliberate misdirection by those who benefit from capitalism.

    Over the past few years, I have been slowly coming to have more leftist and socialist opinions. It's been really great to find that there's this whole section of YouTube that makes me think about ideas critically and encourages me to reflect on my own values. I appreciate all you guys do, especially providing historical context, new information, and hooking a girl up with downright sexy aesthetics (ContraPoints is my favorite in this regard, but I like Olly's aesthetic as well). Thank you for the entertainment and analysis! I hope to be about to support the work of more creators in the future!

  20. My dad, who is Jewish, worked for evonik. He knew about the past but Germans make a big point about acknowlging the Holocaust and that it was a horror but still …..wild

  21. the intentional music choice in the end with the comment "…comrade?" both used in parody and in serious tone. you are awesome

  22. There are some big examples of liberals siding with left-wingers in history though, such as the Republic siding with the communists and anarchists in the Spanish Civil war and the allies siding with the Soviet Union in world war 2 against fascist enemies

  23. Apparently the response to this series from an associate who is an American far-right conservative is "He's a British spy and this is propaganda to try and weaken America for an invasion".
    So far that's been his response to EVERYTHING that isn't what he already believes.

  24. Kwame Ture was not a Black Panther. He predated them by several years. He, when he was still using the name Stokely Carmichael, began to speak on Black Power, and to some degree, his work inspired Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seales, he never was officially a member of the Black Panther Party. Chaka Khan, on the other hand, was.

  25. I think liberalism and capitalism are mostly a good thing, because without them it's very unlikely we'd have the industrial revolution that overall improved everyone's life. I just think it needs to be tweaked from time to time by regulations and other left wing policies. Also I think capitalism works much better on a small scale, because once a company amasses too much power it'll become major employer and gets too much power over people's lives.

  26. I have to admit, I honestly thought Liberalism *was* actually what it pretended to be. Yikes! This is a pretty important message to spread. Thank you.

  27. You've put words on my thoughts and put all the pieces together. Now that I understand furthermore I'm angrier. I wish the future was a fully automated luxury gay space communism, but I'm not optimistic.

  28. Wow I understand so much now. I'm from the Netherlands and last week Forum for Democracy won really big in the elections. A right wing fascist party that came out of nowhere. It goes to show that sadly the world is still shifting and shifting to the right more and more.

  29. Can we talk more about fascism's accommodation of capitalism? How does capitalism change during the transition from a classically liberal state to a fascist one?

  30. I know it's supposedly 'ironic', but playing the Soviet national anthem while you make critiques of capitalism kind of signals to followers of extreme, Soviet style socialism that their ideology is preferable to liberalism. You're trying to wrap it around irony, but I think it's the same as when Milo yiannopoulos says 'fat people should hate themselves. It's damage limitation. I know for a fact that if any right wing vlogger banged out wagner or the Nazi anthem 'ironically, you on the left would get salty as hell.

  31. Hey bro, just watching your video for like the 10th time again. Wanted to let you know that between this series and the "alt right playbook" my militantly centrist friend is sliding hard left and even starting to question me less when I freak out over someone's dogwhistles. Keep up the good fight, comrade.

  32. Anyone else have the instinctive urge to yell FUCK OFF when he said comrade? Like yes this has been an interesting and eye-opening critique of liberalism, but I'm still processing this shit and your smug, self-righteous insinuations that far-left ideologies are better/the only way forward are pushing people away at the last minute. Don't do that you arrogant cunt!

  33. Ehh, the historicla examples aren't quite comparable, Weimar Republican Germany, and post war Italy weren't just liberal states, the ywere also very new and very institutionally weak states with very uncertain legitimacy and massive problems from their inception (japan is its own can of worms). They aren't established states with long soldified insituations. Now the US is that and it has a fascist problem (hey Trump), we shall see in 2020 if that becomes a full fascist regime or a close call.

  34. A post Liberal ideology could be nice, but you are assuming we will go back to marxism rather than something truly new

  35. Millions of Ukrainians, Jews, Poles, Belorussians, Soviets (especially the Kulaks), and countless others all over Eastern Europe were starved to death, murdered, or worked to death, because of Stalin’s utopian, anti-individualist policies and the moral repugnance displayed by the Red Army and the empowered Soviet mobs. There’s a debate to be had about socioeconomic structures that must include Socialist ideas. Winking and nodding about, and effectively normalizing, the USSR is comparable to winking and nodding about Nazi Germany.

  36. Around 6:30, Ollie cites Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations as suggesting that rational individual action leads to "the best outcome", but I should like to dissuade everyone from this broadly held misconception, as I'm fairly sure everyone who states it has not actually read Adam Smith. His actual philosophy certainly requires a lengthier description than a Youtube comment or side note on liberalism could contain, but briefly his broader point here is that though we are often drawn to the examples of folly for their anecdotal intrigue, those accustomed to earning their keep generally act in their economic best interest (admittedly constrained by their environment) to the betterment of society as a whole. The ridiculous extrapolations that followed by more modern economists are perhaps a greater symptom of directly attempting to justify preexisting economic structures, or else in search of scientific rigor in the wrong way (see More Heat Than Light, by Philip Mirowski)

  37. That ending got me. As a history student I've always considered myself leftist, but never all out communist because I feel like I don't completely understand politics and economy. But that ending got me, and I'd rather firmly state myself now as a communist.

  38. I ask this as an honest question, and not as a 'gotcha' question. If you are so vehemently opposed to capitalism, how do you square using the benefits of capitalism? Also, why do these videos have ads? Aren't you basically arguing against such a thing?

  39. I'll be honest: even reading as much as I can, I don't know all the answers, but Olly was right when he says "What comes next?" is the biggest question of the 21st century. And quite frankly, I'm 1000% more likely to go radical left than radical right because of how fucking inhumane, disgusting, and genocidal the far right is. If I have to choose between trying our hand at Marxism or embracing Nazism—well, that's just not a choice, is it? And the people that stick their head in the sand and can't see the mile deep cracks forming in the neoliberalist, uber capitalist system are going to be the first to fall through because the billionaires won't save them, and the left will shrug and say, "We tried to tell you."

  40. Case in point.
    Monday Canada's Liberal Party declares a "Climate Emergency".
    Tuesday Canada's Liberal Party approves a pipeline for toxic bitumen export.

  41. The group doesn't benefit the most from each of the group member pursuing their own self interest, especially when the resource is limited. It is demonstrated everyday on the street with vehicles. It is in the interest of every individual to have cars and to, say, cut lines in order to get ahead. But doing so results in traffic jam which hurt everybody using the road, especially near the traffic light. Hell, even traffic lights, signs, and regulations are there for this very reason. Society must be designed and arranged in certain way to achieve efficiency and to benefit everybody.

  42. "What's gonna happen in the future?" -An important question for the 21st century.
    Yeah, no shit Sherlock.

  43. You forgot another problem with liberalism or neoliberalism, although you did kind of touch on it briefly. It's a "one size fits all" philosophy. It assumes that everyone is capable of being the next President of the United States or the next Elon Musk, but that's about as far away from reality as you can possibly get. And, for me, that's its BIGGEST problem.

  44. i think we need a reasonably mixed system of capitalism and socialism, unlike the 90/10 split of capitalism/socialism that we seem to have now in the US.

  45. The problem with Liberalism is that it ultimately slides to the LEFT. You are delusional if you believe there is such thing as "white supremacy". Leftist propaganda is pushed thru 99.9% of all media. Nazis were not supremacists but equalitists believing in One Equality Reich to be created by eliminating the superior (the 1% exploiter Jews) & the inferior (Gypsis, homos etc)

  46. If liberalism love of free speech is easily perverted by fascist propaganda when it is planning its destruction, you got to explain why communist propaganda was unable to take advantage of that same weakness to usher in the paradise of the workers…

  47. I would like to add that Liberalism fosters Fascism (propaganda) because "Liberalism (in western societies) JUSTIFIES violence against 'the other'/'the exceptions' i.e. people of color, immigrants"

  48. The right is a reactionary force. Fascism was a hard right response to Communiism. It mainly arose in Catholic countries due to the fact that the authoritarianism of the church made those societies fertile ground for authoritarian movements. The rise of fascism was not pre destined. The inability of liberals to oppose communism effectively led to people turning towards hard right political movement's.

  49. 2:28 I'll call them out for you: Dave Rubin, Lauren (Braun) Southern, Steven Crowder, Once but no longer Milo (whatever his name was, I've forgotten and can't be arsed to google him) Gavin Mcguinnes, Joe Rogan (not right wing himself, but offers them a lot of exposer). A lot of these people have been demonetised or banned completely from the platform, at which point they'll cry and wail "Fascist leftist censorship!" about these private corporations taking away their "rights" (which they did themselves when agreeing to the Ts and Cs), and beg mother state to step in and, er, regulate these private neoliberal corporations. facepalm.

  50. Dude, fascism is a regime where companies and oligarchs are merged with government as much as possible. It doesn't necessarily involve white supremacy, because that's not how it emerged originally in Italy and because this issue of supremacy is not the main part of it. Fasism is the final stage of capitalism, where everything is decided by how much influent companies and oligarchs can be. So its not like capitalism tends to lean toward fascism, capitalism is a fascism. White supremacy stuff is not fascist, but nazist (or neonazist) and not all nazis care about market that much, although they tend to lean toward capitalism

  51. I loved this series. I mean you were wildly misguided on the front of human decision-making. Human decision making comes from place of personal safety and personal profit. Now that doesnt mean decisions cant be altruistic, as they still have a spiritual personal gain. But we make decisions to help other people when we have a surplus of comfort

  52. You say we can make decisions. I contest that. Socialism takes on a whole new meaning when you realize people don't have free will at all.

  53. In late-stage capitalism you have nothing to lose but your chains because you're too poor to own anything else.
    In fact, those chains are corporate property and you have to rent them.

  54. Socialism is in fact compatible with fascism in theory but as state socialism leads to poverty, and scarcity, leading a completly socialist state facists likely wouldn't be able to finance their agenda.

  55. The lots of wealth capitalism generates doesn't tend to stay at the top, tends to be reinvested and generate jobs and more wealth.

  56. Shame you didn't put any Sargon, Steven Crowder, or Ben Shapiro clips…… might have gotten a real debate with Conservatives in here.

  57. Why Wagner? He was on Bakunin’s side, almost caught at the revolt in Dresde on 49. He passed most of his life being poor and depending on welfare.

Leave a Reply

(*) Required, Your email will not be published