State Education: Indoctrination in Teaching—How to Solve the Problem of Education

When you look at the history of the state
education system as a whole, it was used to politically indoctrinate society to target
the youth so that when they leave school, they become subservient to the state. Now,
this is really no different, if you look back to the seventeenth century, people were kept
in the dark, they were ill-informed, uneducated, they were not able to freely read or write
and, therefore, it was easier to control society as a whole to make them live in servitude.
Well, this was really no different to that of the twentieth century through these, you
know, fascist and communist regimes; you saw it with Nazi Germany where they used state
education: “The Nazis moved quickly to control education and the schools. They recognised
that a new generation of supporters would be critical to their success. Responsibility
for carrying out the educational goals of the Nazi Party fell to the National Socialist
Teachers League (the NSLB) the Ministry of Education and the Hitler youth. The NSLB was
responsible for indoctrinating educators in the fundamentals of the Nazi ideology.” As
well, of course, in the Soviet Union and, of course, these two regimes alone had banned
books like that of Friedrich A. Von Hayek’s book, ‘A Road to Serfdom.’ Now, the reason
why they would keep information away from them is because a freer and better-educated
society is then able to see through the lies of such a regime and so, what the communist
regimes would do, is they would banish this idea of there being a God and the Christian
religion, or whatever other religion and they would get people to believe through indoctrination
that the state is the God and, therefore, living in servitude. You will hear the arguments
much like that of universal healthcare, you hear it all the time with that of the NHS
where people say that it’s available for everyone. Well, that’s the same arguments that you will
hear for, you know, free education and even, you know, it’s more affordable for everyone,
these are the arguments you hear for anything universal; universal healthcare; universal
education. It’s always a case that it’s more affordable and it’s available for everyone,
that’s the arguments that you hear, but what you actually find is is the very fact that
there is a lot of neglect. Now, the United States of America is really no different to
the poor education within Scotland, for example; you have a lot of subjects that are being
taught that are useless. They’re not really preparing people for the actual real world
out there. Kids that go off to college or university and they are studying these other
subjects that are completely worthless that will get them no job at the end of it, however,
they’ll end up in student debt. A large amount of student debt. Now, you could go back to
the nineteenth century of the United States of America when they did have a free market
education system and they had a 95 percent literacy rate on average. Now, it wasn’t a
case that you would have these classroom sizes with about 30 different pupils where the teacher
cannot get round every single pupil at a time. And I know from experience having gone through
state education in Scotland where, in my time, through 6-years of high school, we must have
went through about 110 different teachers and many of the teachers that would come in
as fill-in teachers, wouldn’t even have a clue about the subject and they would just
tell you to get on with your work. And if you’re stuck for something and you’re trying
to get help, they can’t really help you the same. And even then, you had a case where
sometimes the teacher would leave the classroom and he wouldn’t even be there for you to be
able to ask questions. When I was studying Travel and Tourism, I got an answer correct,
however, because my answer in an assessment paper did not match what the government board
were looking for, they told me to redo it and redo the assessment on a second attempt.
Now, you only get about 3 attempts, or something? I re-sat my assessment and I had to change
my answer to suit what the government was wanting. It’s not teaching kids to think critically,
it’s not teaching kids to think for themselves, it’s pretty much teaching kids in a linear
though process that it must suit government and what government says is right. One of
the most pervasive arguments you’re going to hear in favour of state education is that
it’s too expensive to go private and, therefore, it’s available for everyone, it’s more affordable
if it’s free and, therefore, if you’ve got free tuition fees to universities; if you’ve
got free this, free that, then, of course, it’s available for everyone there. But people
don’t understand that there’s a price that you pay for that, a very heavy price and you
pay for it by compensating in other areas of the economy. I’ve already explained much
of that, I gave the example before to state that even when it came to the university degree
to study photography, there was only 11 placements available because the placements have been
cutback. And even employment opportunity is cutback in order to compensate paying for
the so-called free stuff. Now, of course, that was 11 placements during a period when
it was only free tuition fees to that of people in Britain in Scotland, shall I say. Well,
it’s now a case that the SNP has made free tuition fees to foreign students coming to
Scotland. So, they’re getting to live at the expense off our taxpayers and there’s going
to be a very heavy cost for that. This argument that you’ll hear, again, you could relate
this to the laws of supply and demand because, take for example, the United States; in 1996
there was 44,000 applicants for medical school, but there was only 16,000 placements available.
That means that the cost is going to be very expensive. The demand for placements far outstrips
the supply. So, you might say then: “Okay, well why don’t you just build more medical
schools.” Well, that’s what we would want to do, but as a result of a government created
monopoly, then, of course, it led to the closure of all those medical schools. Well, it’s the
same thing with regards to education in this country. So, there’s a wonderful TED Talk
by a woman in Glasgow that spoke about the private education in many of the poorer countries.
It destroys that argument to say this is why we need so-called free education system. In
fact, what you’ll find is is that, no different to free market healthcare in the nineteenth
century of the United States, the free market education system was dirt cheap and, of course,
the standards of education is far greater. How you improve the education system is by,
not just greatly reducing the costs and making more placements available, it’s about getting
rid of these subjects that really serve no purpose and have no end value, will not get
people jobs at the end of it. You know, there’s nothing stopping people learning these subjects
independently, anyway and there’s probably a wealth of information out there. They should
be encouraged to do, you know, apprenticeships, etc. So they don’t need to go to university
or whatnot. That’s how you improve and like I said, with the classroom of about 30 different
pupils, well, in a free market education system, it’s different, they’re able to get around
students one-by-one. That’s why I support the free market education system, it would
improve the quality of education, it would give a wider market, it would certainly create
choice for students and it’s more efficient. So, if you’ve got any questions that you would
like to ask me, comment in the comment sections below and I’ll be sure to get back to you.
Don’t forget to like the video, share the video and, of course, subscribe and thank
you for watching and I shall talk to you’s later, cheers!

11 thoughts on “State Education: Indoctrination in Teaching—How to Solve the Problem of Education”

  1. Scotty M I forgot to mention interest rates in Islam. So instead of loaning, we invest instead for a certain amount of equity. This percentage of equity is determined by the marketplace. In the first Muslim societies, this basically fulfilled time preference which is interests main economic role. Investment encourages lenders to give money more responsibly because they have a chance of losing money if lent to the wrong firm. And the monetary rewards are much more higher. This doesn’t work well in current Muslim countries because of the massive government regulation.

  2. Scotty M, about interest in Islam. Islam doesn’t reject time preference, it encourages investment over loaning for a certain equity or ownership. This percentage of ownership is determined by the marketplace just like interest. It’s more of a partnership and encourages better lending responsibility which leads to more profit

  3. Here are some of the anarcho syndicalists responses:
    “ Firstly, I don't deny that the CNT had a presence in patrols, nor that they didn't kill. Only that all the examples you have given were misframed, Navarro's case was one in which the village openly supported fascism, and didn't explicitly know the patrol to be CNT or PCE. As for Fascism. Fascism has so much to do with centralization. The main tenets of fascism are a rejection of democracy as totally corrupt in all manners, extreme centralization, national rebirth, and a singular central leader. Other than that economically fascism is pretty open. Most instances of fascism involve protectionism historically speaking, but Strasserism was a form of Socialist Fascism, and National Socialism to decent extents employed social democratic economic policy.

    As for the acts you listed, these people were Liberals, yes they were capitalists, but they were liberals. That was the liberalization of trade, the idea that laissez faire economics is "more capitalist" than protectionism is fairly strange. It is more libertarian, and less totalitarian, but it isn't more or less capitalist. Furthermore the idea that capitalism is inherent to liberty, or vice versa, is hilarious. You are conflating Capitalism and Liberalism, specifically in this case Classical Liberalism. Fascists are Capitalist through and through, Hitler privatized massive swaths of the economy, and turned the government into a private entity, merging it with corporations.

    Let me make something perfectly clear to you, Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. In this case it isn't private meaning "Not the government" it is private meaning "non collective". Non collective to a state of totality or near to that. When all democratic means of a government is removed, that government is no longer a public entity, it has more in common with a private business than it does with the public. Again, pulling the good old "Authoritarian Capitalism isn't real capitalism" Come on, I admit that Marxist Leninists are Socialists, the idea that Protectionism is anti capitalist is stupid. Same with corporatism, and mercantilism. All of these things are specific to capitalism, or feudalism. Imperialism I will give you, Imperialism can be practiced by any state, but it still isn't a capitalist measure.

    You are unironically hitting me with an extremely liberal point. The maximization of free trade does not mean the maximization of capitalism, it does mean the maximization of liberalism however, but Capitalism and Liberalism are different things. By this logic a true capitalist nation has never existed, by this logic anything close to a true capitalist nation hasn't existed until the late 20th century, given nearly every government up to that point practiced heavy amounts either Protectionism, Mercantilism, Imperialism, Corporatism, Socialism, or other anti liberal measures. Look, here is the litmus test, in Mercantilism, and Fascism, was it a public or private message? Look beyond the point of "did the government do it or not" take a more nuanced approach. Was the government democratic, did the institutions that employed this really do so in a collective manner, and furthermore, were these measures taken for the benefit of the collective?

    A for violence against fascists, depends. Will it stop Fascism? If yes, then yes, if no, than no. Simple. As for the claim that Capitalists believe totality of freedom. Okay again conflating liberal capitalism with all capitalism. Capitalism again, is merely the private ownership of the means of production. Furthermore, a business can go to a third world country and brutalize them and nothing in capitalism stops them from doing that, that is still a capitalist action. Furthermore, Speech can infringe upon rights, certain forms of speech. If your speech has a direct correlation to lead to mass murder then I would be okay with shutting it down, if, and again strong if, it means stopping said mass murder. Furthermore, "Antifa are the classic socialists and all fascists are socialists" um, what? Are you really gonna hit me with the claim that Fascism is socialist. Okay wow. Again this is an incredibly oblique view of political science. What about fascism is socialist exactly? Is it the government control? I mean Marx was anti government, Is it the mass Privatization of industry? No that doesn't make sense. Is it the attack on liberties and rights? Well Socialisms goal is actually to increase liberal rights, and to achieve where liberalism failed as the goal of liberalism was liberty, equality, and brotherhood, and true liberty cannot be achieved under authoritarian business systems. Is it the far right cultural beliefs? Um, that could be socialist, but not generally. I don't see any avenue in which all fascism is socialist.

    Does it matter how I paint the tyrannical workers patrol? You accuse me of painting a picture when you call them the tyrannical workers patrol seaking to terrorise anyone and everyone they disagreed with? Really? Do you not see the utter hypocrisy. Simply, no, Just as you would be okay with an individual murdering in self defense, I am okay with the similar, just on a larger scale. It is still libertarian, because their actions are to preserve liberty. Just as in the American revolution, we killed thousands in executions and purges to preserve liberty, and thousands more in combat, I think the same is okay, infact better against Fascists, especially during war time.

    Okay, so you make the claim, that the Soviet Union didn't lift the country out of poverty.

    All of these articles and papers heavily support the massive reduction in all signifiers of poverty. Average income, average famine rates, mortality rates, consumer goods, homelessness, unemployment, and GDP. The claim that Tsarist russia was more wealthy, or less empovershed than the Soviet Union is a laughable one. You could make the argument of that to modern russia, but not to Imperial Russia. Furthermore, Serfdom is a very specific system in which a peasantry class works for a non governmental or governmental group in which they are bound to their land and have no democratic authority. I would say Lenin's rule was most definitely a more democratic one, he was brought into power with massive popular support, and the peasantry overwhelmingly took to his defense against the White Army, but as for the later leadership I would accept the idea that you could call this somewhat serfdom, Fascist, or otherwise State Capitalist. Funnily your argument for the Soviet Union also being Feudal is the same argument you critiqued Noam Chomsky for, I personally ascribe to the initial doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but not its full extension. As for the soviet unions spending habits, they put a massive amount of money and resources into the cold war, more than the US in fact, and technologically they achieved about as much if not more than the US in this respect. Their nuclear program, and rocket programs were in fact more advanced in later years than that of the US. As for your claim that the soviet union was being funded by the west. This is foolish. Take a look at Comecon economic reports, and other reports taken from the United Nations, you find that the Soviet Union exported little to the west, and vice versa. They actually ran massive deficits with the west and because of this tried to implement economic austerity measures and cut off massive areas of economic liberal trade with the west. Still again take a look at Comecon reports, the vast majority of the Soviet Union's wealth was generated inside the Soviet Union. If not them, take a look at Cuba or North Korea. North Korea for example had virtually no trade with any of the west and even little from China and the Soviet Union, and yet from around the 1950s to 1980s, they economically were vastly superior to South Korea in every metric.”

  4. Here is another of his responses:
    “As for your claim that Lenin was one of the nastiest most evil big bad meany dictators the world has ever seen. Okay, cool, Sure. He killed a lot of people yes, but in Russia there were a whole bunch of Feudalists lurking about. I could probably defend a decent portion of the death that happened during the Civil War, just as I would in referring to the American Civil war, or the American Revolution, or World War Two. All of which involved Fascists and State Capitalists up against more egalitarian peoples, and all of which were won because of those measures. As for Trotsky, again cool, I mean Trotsky wasn't a dictator so that's wrong, but he did lead the Red Army, and he did kill a lot of people, but again, I think a decent amount of that was justified. I mean to compare the mass death in the Holodomor or the Holocaust with that of wartime execution and POW camps is laughable. Don't get me wrong, I am positive that Lenin and Trotsky killed many many innocent people, and probably could have killed a decent quarter less than they did to achieve the same thing, but still, okay. I mean, its a sad fact, but when you are fighting against Fascism, when the Soviets were pushing into Germany, every German soldier, every Fascist sympathizer, was a possible insurgence, and enough of them could have toppled the lines, when the Liberals of the West landed in Normandy, the same story, every single Fascist sympathizer could have turned out to be someone who would be the straw to break the camel's back and disrupt supply lines, leading to thousands more dead. To compare this, to what, Stalin killing peasants that were slightly more wealthy, or Hitler killing Jews because what, he thought they wanted to destroy the white race, I mean there is a vast difference between the very real possibility of a Fascist sympathizer contributing to a war effort to enstate fascism, and a Jewish person contributing to the Jewish control of the world. Furthermore, I think it is quite funny that even during the Holodomor and Stalin's mass murders, the Soviet Union still had a lower mortality rate then Imperialist Russia did, which is quite embarrassing to be frank. Imperialist Russia in 1900 to 1910 to be specific. This idea that what, the west bankrolled the Soviet Union? is absurd. The five year plans went on during the Great Depression, the banks across the world were collapsing, the only economic powers really left on their own feet were Authoritarian States. The Soviets weren't bankrolled by Corporate elites in the west, I don't know where you got this idea, but it simply isn't true, it can't be true in any metric. If you are talking about the 20s, well during the 20s Union leaders, Union members, workers, socialists, and other left wingers from moderate to radical were being arrested and killed in the west during the red scare. Infact during this time trade with the Russia was actually at one of its lowest points in history. Russia was on the brink of total destruction, but Lenin's NEP did in fact deal with that fairly well. Using Protectionist and State Capitalist policy to create wealth for a poor nation, and then Socialize that wealth, it was effective even though I may disagree with the authoritarian measures. If you are talking about the 30s, also no, the west was in a horrible depression, the Soviets had no allies, and were in fact exporting more consumer goods than resources at the time. Although something that I should address is that during the Holodomor the Soviet Union continued to export grain, which I obviously disagree with. You clearly have no knowledge of Soviet Economic history. The wealth generated by the Soviet Union was residue from the War economy during the Civil war, and massive increase in productivity due to the red scare reaction in Russia also helped the economy immensely. But more specifically again the NEP under Lenin made massive strides towards industrialization, and the Five Year plans were without a doubt successful because of the NEP and Soviet propagation and techniques of establishing collective spirit. The west didn't bankroll the five year plans, again, this isn't even a possibility let alone something that actually happened. During this time the west was in a deep economic depression and even the most powerful corporations in the west were under incredible stress. So much so they allowed a Social Democrat to get in power and institute socialization of economic sectors and social policies.

    As for the Soviets being Humane, per capita yes. My guy you know what fueled western industrialization right? The Third World. Millions upon Millions of people in India and Africa starved in massive quantities for Western Industrialization, not to mention those people inside the west who suffered under horrible conditions. Yes, Per Capita is we look at the millions that died in smaller population pools, entire genetic groups across africa brought near extinction, yeah the Soviet Union was more Humane. What planet am I living on? I am living on the planet that acknowledges the Fact that the Soviet Union has killed and abused a massive amount of people, but the West has done the Same to far far more. This can't be argued, your only argument will either be debating historical fact, or saying that that was corporatist, which it was, but Corporatism is a form of Capitalism, in my opinion the natural evolution of Capitalism.

    As for waste in the Soviet Union, yeah? And? I'm not saying that the economy was perfect, I would have prefered mass liberalization of the economy, while maintaining collectivization and socialization. But Me accepting this fact doesn't mean I have to deny the fact that the Soviet Union's economy was unprecedented, and frankly the most successful centrally planned economic structure in history, one that again, Rivaled the Liberalized Market Economies, which is quite an achievement. Okay, next you make the statement that Britain during the 19th Century was better than the Soviet Union? Okay firstly, to address living standards. I compare the Soviet Union to Britain because they would be quite similar in Comparison. 20th Century Russia was a feudalist economy quite similar to that of pre industrial revolution Britain in near every metric, the only difference being it occured in the 20th century, and late 19th century. Furthermore, you make the claim again attributing the Social progress of worker backlash to poor conditions on that of the capitalists. This is fairly funny. The Labour party was formed by workers out of a necessity of instituting these reforms you are pressing towards liberal capitalism. Furthermore, again, the links I have already provided address the standards in the Soviet Union, you fail to provide any hard evidence to back your statements, only that the US average wages were higher than every other country in the 19th century. Okay, great. I don't really care that much about the Average wage when we are talking about living standards, I would rather talk about the most common wage, or the median wage. Both of which heavily reduce that number, and furthermore both of which are frankly still irrelevant as at the time the US was a Liberalized Industrialized Capitalist economy, when most others were still Feudal. The claim that the US was better that what, The German fractured states, Imperial Russia, Spain? Any other fucking Feudalism nation in a state of subsistence farming was worse than the US, really? I had no idea? Its not like a major part of my ideology accounts that Liberal Capitalism is a vital part of establishing said ideology, and its not like one of two crucial parts of my ideology involve the total reduction of state capitalist influence in the market and mass liberalization alongside Socialization of an economy is the core tenant of economic prosperity under this ideology. Its not as if that is a thing. Again with the idea that the West funded the Soviet Union. I'm going to need a source on that. And furthermore, you realize that there are unironic people who believe that the Soviet Union, and the Modern PRC, DPRK, and Cuba all were the peak examples of how societies should be ran. In North Korea does the average person have a say on who leads? Does the collective? No not really, not in any substantial manner. I would defend much of what went on during the Russian Revolution, and Civil War, on the basis that Lenin had decent popular support, same with Trotsky, Bukharin, and a Number of other Members of the Bolsheviks. They had the majority, and even though no direct vote was carried out, it was a vote in the sense the French Revolution was a vote. It was a show of the people's opinions through force, and by that metric I would defend what went on their as Socialist, as for the morality of it. Well I would say much of what happened could have been reduced significantly, but weighing the rule of the Tsar to the Rule of the Bolsheviks is no contest, weighing Feudalism to Socialism, even may it be Totalitarian, I still see as no contest. It is a Fascistic, Monarchist, Feudal Society, and the harm caused by it was demonstrable in comparison to what was brought by the Soviets. And if you think that Russia would have industrialized as quickly without Soviet Policy, well again you would be disagreeing with general historical opinion, and you would be doing so with little evidence to support such a claim.”

  5. Here is response 3:
    “Okay, No, I never denied that workers improvements happened under capitalism, I didn't say that, I never said that. You are arguing against a Strawman. As for the statement I cut off at, I am making the objective point that social programs are instituted by workers because they most benefit workers. Is it a coincidence that all the things I listed were instituted in large corporations and the government after massive Union action. No, its not, Are you really what going to tell me that it helps a company and the free market to pay workers drastically more. Really? Is that why that nearly every major corporation today exports the majority of their labour costs to the third world and countries with lighter labour regulations? Yes of course during the industrial revolution life got better, I NEVER DENIED THIS. It got drastically better, but it was still really shit. When you say the Free Market solve the problem, what you mean is the Socialist Free Market, The Union's Free Market. Companies pay people shit for years, making every member of the family work, in shit conditions, for tiny amounts of money, literally causing inbreeding, and in response, the Free Market kicked in, because as a natural reaction to being prolapsed by Capitalists, the Working Class organized, and combatted it. My guy stop arguing strawmans. The government was late to the game, In my opinion the government will always be late to the game, in fact the Government actually worked against the game. In the 19th Century the government, nearly every election was dominated by Liberals, it was dominated by Whigs and Republicans. It was dominated by people who were openly in the pockets of massive Business men, you deny the fact that the laws of copyright, the laws that allow the sustaining of these massive corporations, were instituted not by the government, but by the government as a proxy for business, for the most powerful business. You have the audacity to claim that Businesses what, just decided suddenly, hey we have saved just the right amount of money off industrialization to raise the pay of our miners, no, that isn't what happened. What happened is the workers went on strike and fought for their liberty, their rights as workers, and you again have the audacity to claim that business was responsible. They were the ones that took control of the government an instituted laws to heavily support corporations, subsidies, and the like. They were the ones that literally sent in Mercenaries, The National Guard, MARINES to Shoot Union members and workers dead, what were they asking for? That nice amount of money to let mothers keep their children out of the dangerous workplace. And now after the Unions won you claim that the business would always get to it? Okay, well let's look at today if you deny the past. Today our conditions in the US are decent, pretty good. But what is happening, oh know, even thought worker productivity is at an all time high in history, inflation is moving far faster than average wages, and even thought profit margins have increased at an unbelievable extent, wages have increased by virtually nothing since what the 80s? Okay, but I know, what right do workers today have to complain when they live with all these western privileges? Well, let's take a look at the fact that even though wealth inequality is only matched by the time of the Pharos of Egypt, and even though there is enough wealth to buy a decent house for every person in America, massive Corporations still export their factories to China and India to harp in on that cheep labour costs. And because this benefits the government, obviously they are going to try and sustain it as much as possible.

    You come with the strawman of High GDP being my only argument. Yeah you can produce a lot and have a lot of that go to waste, that happened a lot in the soviet Union. So? GDP is a good standard of Metric for any Liberalized Economy, any Free Market Economy, generally with planned economies you would focus on other factors such as household wealth, quality of life, and social programs. It is an objective fact that the Soviet Union's economy was unprecedented in the history of planned economic structure. You can't contest this, the Soviet Union brought a country from total desolation, and through Five year plans survived the greatest war in history, lost 1/3 of its male population, and still went on to define itself as the second most powerful nation in all of history. This isn't even something that many historians would contest seriously. The Soviet Union took Russia from a Semi Feudal Agrarian Industrialized state that lost to Japan in multiple wars, Lost to Qing China in multiple wars, was lesser than nearly every other major power in the world, and preformed at the Level of Austria Hungary and the Ottoman Empire during WW1, perhaps worse given the fact that Russia was the country to actually loose massive amounts of land, to the Second Most Powerful Nation in all of History, whose technology rivaled that of all the west, whose technology created the most powerful weapons known to man, and whose technology was the first to bring humans out of the atmosphere. Decreased the massive amounts of death and famine, and who practically speaking single handedly turned the tides of the War against Fascism. The first nation in history to truly be able to challenge the infinite economic might of the American Powerhouse. You are right, you can either get money from the private sector or the printing press, but the Soviets didn't care about money under Lenin, nor Stalin, maybe not even under Khrushchev. They cared about the collective. Truly, people produced things and gave it up willingly to fight for their land and for an ideology they thought was great, and they thought was being practiced. We can debate whether or not the Soviet Union, and especially the late Soviet Union was socialist, or state capitalist, or communist, as often I find myself doing. But I would never attempt to make the Argument with any Tankie that the Soviet Union was worse than Imperial Russia, I would be hesitant to make that Statement with the modern Federation. You realize the majority of people who lived in both modern former Soviet Nations, as well as the Soviet Nations actually prefer the Soviet rule.

    Okay, Now, I just spent a few hundred words jacking off any tankie that happens to wander down this corner of the internet, so I will do the obligatory addressing of the Unions failures, of which I think there are many, and frankly you wouldn't really disagree with. Firstly the Soviet Union was idiotic in thinking capitalism would dismantle itself. Stalin disagreed with and Killed Bukharin, because Bukharin said that the Soviets needed to Liberalize and make steps towards fighting capitalism on an economic battlefield, instead of Stalin's waiting for Capitalism to just decay, and Trotsky's sending out millions of Russian Men to die in a never ending revolution. Stalin and most of Soviet political figures believed Capitalism, would strictly follow Dialectical Materialism. They believed Feudalism was all but dead, the world was in capitalism, and they would all inevitably fall into good old Socialism just as Russia did, this was foolish beyond belief. Firstly they thought this while they had Fascist neighbors rejecting all things liberal capitalist and stepping backwards towards a more Feudalistic State Capitalist structure, arguably barbaristic. Furthermore as for the west, NeoLiberalism and Social Democracy saved Capitalism and reformed it, or hyper supported it in a manner that either made it tolerable for the working class, or to powerful to be stopped by the working class. And then there is of course the fact that the Soviet Union was a shitehole of Liberty, rights were non existent, and democracy was little to none.

    Again, when have I ever said that workers didn't improve under capitalism. Please stop arguing strawman, I THINK CAPITALISM WAS AN IMPROVEMENT. I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THIS. MARX BELIEVED THIS. After this you seem to spend a few paragraphs talking about why Capitalism was an improvement from Feudalism. To which I say no shit. Seriously, I said I followed a decent amount of dialectical materialism. Do you not know what Dialectical Materialism is? Let me sum it up. Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism is the marxist theory, or a marxist tool used to describe the course of human history and economic advancement. Framing society in a materialistic view point as people move and react to their material conditions, and their survivability under these conditions. I ascribe to the part that states Barbarism will naturally dissolve towards feudal systems as people inherently move towards societal organization out of a need of survival, and I also ascribe to the thought that Liberal Capitalism will be a constant move from Feudalism as Feudalism fails to satisfy the material conditions of the population. I disagree with the Claim that the same will happen in Capitalism, I mean it is fairly easy for me to say now with 2020 hindsight, but yeah that didn't happen. Still, for you to ascribe business as the hero of the workers rights movement is fairly funny, and I have already addressed this foolish concept.”

  6. Here is response number 4:
    “Next you claim that Neoliberalism is a made up concept. Neoliberalism is both a form of Corporatism and Capitalism. It is authoritarian support of free trade policy to mobilize against Socialist nations. It is called Neoliberalism because Reagan claimed himself to be the revitalization of Classical Liberalism, most political scientists have taken his claims and more pointed out that really he took aspects of Economic Liberalism and put them under a more authoritarian framework. It is still Capitalist of course. Your claim that Capitalism can't be authoritarian is one that would make any reputable political scientist laugh. Furthermore most of your claims here are more conspiratorial than rational.

    As for your claims once again on Unions. Less Unions push for those laws and much more Unions direct action. I believe I said this, that Unions directly led to change on Corporate policy, not without a fight mind you. Anyways I already addressed this. Mothers kept their children out of the factories because the IWW and many other massive Unions took huge measures towards defending workers directly, and the institution of those Laws was to stop it from happening in the future. You are basically denying a war that happened. Paramilitary groups fought battles on US soil. Corporate Mercenaries and Government forces were deployed to gun down workers. The Coal Wars is one good example. I'm sorry, Did I claim that child labour laws kept kids out of the factories? I should say Unions did, in every way. Unions took them out of the factories in the first place, and Unions kept them out through the government. I agree, Technology did kill the demand for slavery, BUT. The thing is the massive Plantation owners and Aristocratic Oligarchs of the South knew one thing. That them losing slaves would totally screw them, the country as a whole would get better, but they would be screwed, just as modern Oil Companies know that even though the tides will rise, they will make much more money squeezing out as much oil as possible than they will fighting climate change. And The Slave owners had influence, they owned the south, and the Southern Government, and to protect their interests, what happened? What did they do to protect their economic interests at all cost? Oh, that's right, they rolled over without a fight and ended slavery by themselves because the free market demanded it, and it would help the country even though it would hurt them so they knew they had to take the personal hit for the good of the people. Sorry, How could I have forgotten the great day when all the Southern Aristocrats freed their slaves. Guess I forgot it in the same way I forgot all the Corporate Suits and Industrial Tycoons raising wages without a fight.

    My guy, You evenly tacitly accept the date of him raising wages. Again, you know when he raised wages to 30 dollars an hour right? I already explained it. Next you quote me, and talk about what I have explained. And hit me up with another quote, to which you don't source. But I'm just going to give you this politifact thing to talk about this. Again you are arguing against overwhelming historical opinion. Even reactionaries admit that Unions helped workers in the 19th Century

    Actually I can give many more citations to support this,

    Excellent. I can give you many more if you wish. Your next argument would best be to either claim that this was the work of the (((globalists))) or the (((marxists))).

    As for the myth of monopolies. Okay. Its called Coal Mine Script and other company scripts.

    Citation to support this doot doot jesus christ. This is some peek historical dishonesty.

    You are making quite a surprising argument at this point. You are denying the existence of monopolies in the 18th century and ignoring the vast economic improvement that went on in the turn of the century at the hands of Roosevelt's economic policy. Honestly I didn't expect this, from you at least, I would expect it from most Anarcho Capitalists, so here we are. Firstly you don't provide evidence. You provide correlation, basic logic my guy, correlation doesn't mean causation. You need to prove that the trusts put in place actually helped the common working class over that of the upper class. Furthermore, if this is your claim then I assume you would say that the destruction of these trusts would hurt the economy and the median economic status, but the adverse happened under Teddy Roosevelt. Furthermore simply looking at his popularity and general ranking by most historians, it is fairly easy to see why people praise his economic policy. But if you demand I provide evidence over your lack of evidence, I will. Because it won't be hard.×9904400302?journalCode=abxa

    That was fun. Okay now for Corporatism.

    This quickly you can read to address the claim that Capitalism is Individualist. Capitalism is individualistic, but again nothing about private ownership of production necessitates individualism. There is a reason why Anarcho Individualists make such great strides to diverge themselves from Anarcho Capitalists. It is capitalism. Capitalism is the private individual, or the private persons use of labour of others in an organized contract of wages to produce trade and sell goods and or services. The Government can be a commodity to be bought by Companies, and sold by the same companies. For the Government to be socialist in my opinion and in most Marxists opinions it has to be democratic, which is why most die hard defenders of The Soviet Union, PRC, and DPRK Make Funny and Ludicrous claims like "North Korea is democratic" Because under Socialist doctrine, the Government is only collective if it is at the behest of the people. For this reason you can have a Private Government, or a better way to define it would be a Private State. One not at the behest of people, population, and collective. Please, do some reading my friend, you talk about Individualism, Have you read Stirner? Or any Georgist Writings? Mutualist? Surely you would have looked into Max Stirner, being he is the pinnacle of Individualists. As for Mutualism that is often called an Individualist economic system, Benjamin Tucker one of the most influential Individualist theorists referenced Mutualism, as one of the first Individualist Anarchist Philosophies, Mutualism defines itself on Individualism as what sets it apart from most other forms of Libertarian Socialism, and leads to it being called not socialist by many others. As for Neoliberalism, part of Neoliberal principles involve a government and the state acting more like a business than a government. Acting in the form member of the free market protecting all its personal interest against the will of those who may hurt its economic interests, whether it be the Socialists in the East, or the People at home. Simply No, Capitalism isn't Inherently Individualist. Capitalism permits the right of the individual to be infringed upon in certain circumstances. This is like a Randian analysis of all politics, which is one to be and has been critiqued by virtually all major political and economic theorists.”

  7. And his final response, please help me and actually address all of his points:
    “As for the Depression. All the things you claim to contribute to the great depression I already agreed with this. But these things were instituted by Business, by Private Business. In the free market it is in the interest of the most wealthy participants to defend themselves, either with their own means, or means represented by the government as proxy. Still major contributions to the depression, mainly stock market crashes were a result of market failures. For you to make an argument that the free market never fails is fairly absurd. Furthermore, Socialist controls over interest rates and reserve ratios are only socialist if they are implemented by collective means, and with the benefit of the collective in mind. These programs you are referring to were implemented by an extremely liberal party that was again overwhelmingly at the behest of major companies. The Free Market influences large Banks to centralize themselves, because that will benefit them and produce more wealth for them. It is the fault of Capitalism because as my argument as always been, the prerogative of businesses in Capitalism is to centralize and to fortify their position on wealth, and those who do so most effectively will do so in this manner. Now, as for Unemployment, The data you give and the manner you represent it is so resoundingly dishonest I am at a loss for words. Yes, in 1929 unemployment sat at 3.2%, in 1932 it was at 23.6%. No shit my friend, at the very beginning of the depression, when this data was collected, before businesses began mas layoffs, of course it would be at 3.2%, around the steady average of the country for the 1920s. No shit. Next you point out that when FDR took over it sat at 24.6%, yes, yes indeed, when he took over, right before he took over in 1932 it was at 23.6%. You see how the way you represent the data makes it appear that FDR brought it up from 3.2% to 24.6% and not that the policy of Hoover brought it from 3.2% to 23.6%. You see the blatant dishonesty. Furthermore, you wanna talk about his actual data during his presidency lets go. He drops it down drastically in 1937, major achievement, especially in comparison to countries in Europe, Specifically Britain under the Tories and Germany under, well, The Conservatives and then the NSDAP, you see that FDR's social democratic policies were quite effective. As for the Roosevelt Recession, you conveniently neglect the fact that during this time Roosevelt instituted many economic embargoes against Japan, which was no doubt the reason for this economic hit, but I would say, and I hope you would agree, a needed one. As if this was not done, Japan may have beat out China, and this could have lead to the death of Tens of Millions more Chinese, Japanese, Americans, and Soviets in the upcoming war. Furthermore you don't mention that in 1940, before the Entrance into the War, FDR brought the unemployment back down to 14%, and then later in 1941 before conscription he brought it down to 10%. Hoover's Liberal policy Brought the Unemployment from 3.2% to 23.6% in a 3 year period. Roosevelt halved the unemployment rate in the same amount of time. And later brought it to a third by the 40s. As for Real Recovery not happening until after WW2, ahh yes, is that why during 1944 the unemployment was at 1.2%, around its lowest point in the history of the United States. Furthermore, You could make the choice to argue that that employment level was because of the war, but the War was a policy of FDR's. Japan wouldn't have attacked the US if they didn't have to, and they attacked because the US embargoed them. This is a mega oof on your part my friend. As for your final statement, Oligopolies, are caused by the government, in Anarcho Capitalism, my argument is, and always has been, that Large companies will ally, to form a sort of government or state. Just as they have before, just as they would again, because that is their best option in the good old free market.

    I go once again to ask you backed totally off Noam Chomsky and frankly many of your arguments on the USSR seem to be ones that lead to the conclusion that they weren't socialist, taking his perspective, furthermore at the same time you make arguments against Libertarian Socialism on the basis that having trade means you aren't socialist, or having a market means you aren't socialist. Both these claims again are totally False. Take a look at Rudolf Rocker, take a look at Bukharin, take a look at any prominent Anarchist theorist and you will see this fact. Its strange, you fail to see that the black sheep of Anarchists are the Anarcho Capitalists. Anarchism has been, has always been, and is to day a political theory based around dismantling all, unjustified hierarchies, or as many as possible at the time. Anarcho Capitalism sustains the unjustified hierarchy of Authoritarian Capitalism. Centralized Business, Hierarchical organization at the whym solely to the owner of said business. Under Anarcho Capitalism, when you create wealth for your boss, your boss has total authority over said wealth. Furthermore you argue against democratic institutions both in practice and conceptually, and then wonder why most Anarcho Capitalists tend to really just be Fascists of some sort, ie Stefan Molyneux types. Democracy is good because democracy is the expression of the idea that you have the right to govern yourself. You have as much authority over yourself as anyone else. In Anarcho Capitalism, you are bound to debts, you are bound to work, you are bound to poverty, you are bound to your health, you are bound to a society that is built in a manner that allows for the total expression of Social Darwinism. That is Anarchism, Social Darwinism brought to a point of open society, allowing the most intelligent, the most powerful, and the most influential, to gain power, and then they are encouraged to maintain that power at all costs, use any tactic possible, and abuse anyone they need to in order to maximize their profits, whether it be their workers at home, the consumers, or those in the third world. Again, what stops a small mercenary firm from gaining some power by working within the capitalist structure, then going overseas and taking slaves. Nothing does, really, because the truth is people back home will want those slaves, they will want cheap labour, they will want these things because these things will increase their profit margins. And once you respond to this and get down here at the bottom, please perhaps actually put in some effort in your response, and address all my points.”

  8. Scotty M I can use your help debating him. The comment chain is below this video:

    It’s under the first comment that you see posted by me

  9. Public schools are a scam. You don't learn much by "being taught" (i.e. listening, reading and watching) because our brains are NOT sponges, they're tools of critical thinking. They're being treated like sponges. This way only about 5-10% (!!) of knowledge will be retained into the adult years.

    We learn by exploring/researching and then explaining what we've learned form that. This is why group projects yield the best results, since they require this method. This is the only way kids can be certain to retain most (~70%) of their knowledge into their adult years.

    I don't know if private schools worry more about proper learning rather than incorrect teaching, because I've never been to one. If they do, great. If not, then the entire school system needs a massive overhaul of the methodology.

    Add to this problem the indoctrination that you've mentioned and you end up with not just a scam, but a tool of propaganda. That makes it a thousandfold worse.

Leave a Reply

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