Javier Milei, the Beginning of the End of Socialist World Domination?

Javier Milei, the beginning of the end of socialist world domination?

Murray Rothbard provided the theory, Javier Milei is it’s first political reality, and here comes a proposal for the liberal utopia envisioned by Hayek. We are all set for a libertarian future.

Milei, the Lenin for freedom?

The term “socialism” is used in the following to refer to the institutionalized policy of aggression against property, over which the state has a monopoly. See also Hans Hermann Hoppe, “A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism”. The Politically Incorr... DiLorenzo, Thomas J. Best Price: $8.15 Buy New $15.39 (as of 09:22 UTC - Details)

Socialism fundamentally draws from the Communist Manifesto of 1848, in which Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels prophesied a revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat and ultimately a socialist paradise, albeit in vague terms.

The liberal response to the Communist Manifesto took 125 years to materialize. Murray N. Rothbard delivered the liberating blow in 1973 with the equally radical libertarian manifesto “For a New Liberty”. Rothbard describes an anarcho-capitalist private law society without states. What was missing in Rothbard’s work was a counter-image to the socialist dreams of the future.

In 1917, Marxism became a political reality with the Russian Revolution. The revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin was followed by numerous socialist icons who embody the spirit of socialism to this day.

In 2023, the Argentines elected Javier Milei as their president. Milei describes himself as an anarcho-capitalist in the spirit of Rothbard. He gives anarcho-capitalism a political reality and catapults the term onto the political world stage.

What are the chances of Milei becoming the Lenin of freedom and what is the role of the libertarian utopia presented below, the so-called OboxPlanet?

The USA illustrates the practical problem of a minimal state.

These introductory remarks can be understood to mean that I am postulating a historical paradigm shift, and this is indeed the case. To make this comprehensible, I will allow myself a brief historical discourse.

Political discussions today are mainly about the size and role of the state. This discussion is young, for one simple reason.

Before 1750, before the industrial revolution, people around the world lived “one bad harvest away from starvation”, as Tom Woods once put it and as Thomas Malthus impressively described in the law named after him. If the authorities back then tried to levy more than “a tenth” in taxes, they often provoked a rebellion. And this tenth was levied nota bene on the net harvest in the fall.

As prosperity slowly grew, the tax issue became more pertinent. The first round went to the liberals, more precisely to the American founding fathers. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 is basically a pamphlet against “taxes without representation” and was championed by charismatic personalities such as Jefferson, Paine, Washington and Franklin. The Americans defeated England and the spirit of freedom spread around the world. The economy became laissez-faire and slavery was abolished worldwide.

As magnificent as the Declaration of Independence was, it contained the seeds of its own subversion. The founding fathers wrote the Declaration with the aim of limiting the state to the protection of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, but this is naïve wishful thinking – and, incidentally, it does not inspire a liberal utopia either. Even such a minimal state is a monopoly on the use of force, which means that the state leaders can make laws and monitor their observance with judges appointed by the very same state leaders. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and the concept of a monopoly on the use of force contains the possibility of exercising absolute power. Just ask yourself: how can the orders of the monopoly on the use of force be ignored?

Following the logic of the growing state, the American federal government increasingly fell into the hands of statists and, lo and behold, more and more intellectuals emerged to justify and sugarcoat state growth. Taxpayer-funded intellectuals, of course.

The age of socialism

The first high point of socialism was the Communist Manifesto, presented by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848. It was a manifesto against freedom and called for a revolution, followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat and a socialist paradise.

The Communist Manifesto marked the starting point for the overwhelming success of socialism, as the march towards ever more state continues to this day. Or rather, the dance towards the state, two steps forward, one step back, with changing colors of the dancer’s costumes. The early socialists were red, soon accompanied by National Socialists in brown, followed by neo-Marxists in green, a few punks in black, and today, we have the rainbow colors, where everyone can find their place. Thus, socialism flourishes in many variations, and there’s no notable political party anywhere that even dares to suggest slaughtering a single sacred state-supporting cow, neither Social Security, nor DEA, FDA, DOT, not even the state post office or public transportation.

What role did the socialist icons play and where were their liberal counterparts?

One could argue that the personalities of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels already made bigger waves than their liberal opponents, but the real starting shot was probably fired in 1917 with Lenin and the Russian Revolution. Lenin’s uncompromising rhetoric and ruthless politics captivated intellectuals and rebellious youth worldwide. Claiming moral superiority, Lenin served as a guiding star and role model for many generations of ambitious politicians.

Lenin inspired an endless parade of socialist, national socialist and neo-Marxist icons, from Juan and Evita Peron to Fidel Castro and Greta Thunberg. Even Stalin, Hitler and Mao had admirers and supporters worldwide. Some thought their methods were brutal, but for many observers, the well-intentioned motives and noble moral goals outweighed any concerns.

On the liberal side, we find no equivalent political figures. One reason for this is that the socialists seized control of vital linguistic terms, holding sway over the very words that shape our thoughts and define our world. They claimed “progressive” for themselves and thus the spirit of dynamic, progressive, future-oriented and courageous. The liberals were left with the word “conservative” with the connotation of preserving, obstructing, preventing, if not cowardice. Socialists advocate for more state intervention, presenting themselves as assertive and strong, while liberals often appear defensive and apologetic, with their backs against the wall.

Even the most radical liberals were, before Rothbard’s libertarian manifesto, merely minarchists, which basically means ” I also like the state, but please, not too much of it”, in other words “not too much of a good thing…”. That doesn’t drive anyone to the barricades, it doesn’t produce any Lenins. Even Reagan and Thatcher could only light little flames of freedom before the next government snuffed them out again.

The historical legacy of Javier Milei

In 1973, Murray Rothbard presented the libertarian manifesto “For a New Liberty”. It, too, is a manifesto, but with the opposite demand. Rothbard argues for more freedom and less state, more precisely for the privatization of all state functions and thus for the abolition of the monopoly on the use of force, i.e. the state.

The libertarian manifesto laid the groundwork for an anarcho-capitalist movement and now, exactly 50 years later, the idea is becoming a political reality. Javier Milei becomes the first avowed anarcho-capitalist to be elected president of Argentina and catapults the concept of anarcho-capitalism onto the political world stage.

Milei argues as uncompromisingly and radically as Lenin, but for the march in the opposite direction. He has turned the moral compass 180 degrees and claims moral superiority for capitalism and the free market. He frequently cites Rothbard, saying: more state is bad, more capitalism is good. One of his battle cries is “Afuera !”, meaning “Out!”—away with state institutions, away with the central bank, away with state regulations.

With this rhetoric, he won, against all expectations and fierce opposition, 56% of voters, including 70% of young people. He is the first notable anarcho-capitalist politician in the history of the world.

The success of Milei lies in the quality and depth of his convictions.

Milei is a fierce advocate of his values. A torrent of words in a freely held Tedx talk in 2019 gives a sense of it:

“In essence, one must understand that we are dealing with a discussion of values. On the one hand, we have socialism, which is based on envy, hatred, resentment, inequality before the law, robbery and theft, and, above all, the attempt to equalize inequalities between us; it is a system that has always been enforced by force and has cost over 100 million lives.

And on the other side we have liberalism, capitalism. It is nothing more and nothing less than full respect for the way of life of others, based on private property, based on free markets, based on few state interventions, based on the division of labor, based on social cooperation, where saving is rewarded and where the effort of work is honored.

And all this by serving others with better quality goods at a better price. In other words, the successful capitalist is nothing more and nothing less than a social benefactor.

But as if all this were not enough, we are also aesthetically superior. Just look at New York and look at Cuba! I don’t know anyone who would move from New York to Cuba. No, everyone wants to move to “damn capitalism”…

Regarding his intellectual references and understanding of theory and practice, Milei leaves no doubt, as evidenced by his April interview with Bloomberg:

Within libertarianism there are different types, the classical (liberals), the minarchists and the anarchists. As for how to proceed in real life, Murray Rothbard has given the correct guidelines for the political actions of a libertarian. Therefore, one should first measure oneself against this guideline and not against those of other economists…While I may greatly admire Milton Friedman greatly, my primary reference is Rothbard….You can’t evaluate policy in a vacuum…. There are anarcho-capitalists who make economic policy recommendations which, when viewed under real world conditions, end up like a costume without a carnival.

Even in the lion’s den, at the WEF in Davos, Milei does not mince his words and says, for example.

“The neo-Marxists have managed to co-opt the common sense of the West. They have achieved this by taking over the media, culture, universities and yes, even international organizations. The latter is perhaps the most serious, as these are institutions that have enormous influence on the political and economic decisions of the countries that make up these international organizations.”

and further

“Whether they openly call themselves communist, socialist, social democratic, Christian democratic, neo-Keynesian, progressive, populist, nationalist or globalist. There are no real differences in substance. They all believe that the state should control all aspects of an individual’s life. They all defend a model that is at odds with the one that has led humanity to the most spectacular advances in its history”.

There are now purists who criticize Milei for not being a pure anarcho-capitalist either, especially when it comes to foreign policy. But Rothbard has an answer even for that: everyone has the right to an intellectual weakness, to an inconsistency. Apart from that, who really cares about Argentina’s foreign policy and how useful would a provocatively libertarian foreign policy be for Milei’s domestic success?

What we already have: Rothbard’s theory and Milei’s personality

Rothbard dethroned socialist theory by proving once and for all that socialism always and everywhere means coercion, violence, planning chaos and poverty. Capitalism means voluntary cooperation, respect for the life plans of others and always leads to freedom, innovation, peace and prosperity.

Milei has internalized Rothbard’s teachings and now shows that Rothbard’s arguments work in practice. He has proven that Rothbard’s ideas, when communicated consistently and passionately, can win elections, inspire the youth and ignite a social movement for freedom. Whatever happens next, this is Milei’s first historic legacy.

Milei himself also attributes his success to external circumstances. It is inherent in the nature of youth to rebel, and rebellion always occurs against the status quo. In an Argentina where socialism has led to impoverishment for a hundred years, the natural rebellion for young people is liberalism.

Milei probably inherited one of the worst political and economic conditions for success and, after more than a hundred days in office, continues to surprise as politically successful and steadfastly libertarian. Should he succeed, Milei could trigger a domino effect and turn other Latin American states into economic tigers.

What we still need: Hayek’s liberal utopia

In most Western industrialized countries, the conditions are different. We do not have general impoverishment. People believe that we can afford an ever-growing state and, within certain limits, that may be true. They also see no reason to question the socialist spirit, indeed the socialist utopia, which we all learned in state schools, and which still permeates and saturates the state-loyal media and cultural institutes throughout the Western world.

For Western industrialized nations, Friedrich von Hayek formulated the challenge as follows:

“We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia…, a truly liberal radicalism….The main lesson which the true liberal must learn from the success of the socialists is that it was their courage to be Utopian which gained them the support of the intellectuals and therefore an influence on public opinion which is daily making possible what only recently seemed utterly remote.». (“The Intellectuals and Socialism», 1949). 

Now we could say that with Rothbard’s libertarian manifesto we have the radical theory, so what else could Hayek mean?

I argue that we need not only anarcho-capitalist theory, but also images and stories. I maintain that the socialist utopia is so deeply ingrained in our societies in feelings and images that we are hardly aware of it. It operates like the religious upbringing we learned as children and never questioned thereafter.

Our main opponent, the socialist utopia.

If you want to win, you have to know your opponent.

The socialist utopia is ultimately based on a vague, fuzzy idea of a socialist paradise of prosperity, equality, justice and peace for all, created by the selfless efforts of our “servants of the people”, i.e. politicians, bureaucrats, civil servants and all state employees – and of course the revolutionaries and their henchmen.

In the words of the pioneers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels:

“In a higher stage of communist society, … after all the fountains of cooperative wealth flow more fully… society can… write on its banner: To each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”.

or elsewhere,

“in communist society, where everyone does not have an exclusive sphere of activity, but can train himself in any branch, society regulates general production and thus makes it possible for me to do this today, that tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, raise cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner as I please, without ever becoming a hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”

Lenin’s companion Trotsky described the socialists fighting spirit as follows:

Yes, our party seizes each of us completely. But in turn, it offers each of us the greatest happiness: the consciousness…that we carry a part of human destiny on our shoulders and that our lives will not be lived in vain. …Separated from (the Communist Party), each of us is nothing; with it in our hands, we are everything.

This spirit then gave rise to images of gloriously happy farmers, workers and families on the posters of the communists, fascists and other political parties. Young women in uniform and the portrait of Che Guevara show the willingness to sacrifice oneself for higher ideals and the same spirit extends to the BLM rioters and the climate activists today. Capitalists, on the other hand, are caricatured as fat, ruthless cigar smokers who make their fortunes on the backs of child labor and with noxious industrial behemoths. This narrative still echoes in the history lessons of our public schools.

These are powerful images and let us not be fooled: such images, in an updated form, continue to be cultivated in our state educational institutions, in culture, art and state media; they indoctrinate our children and wield their insidious power in the subconscious of the entire population.

Incidentally, these images are also familiar in Milei’s Argentina, but they fade into the background when people are struggling to survive. Milei leaves no doubt that it is precisely these socialist ideas that are the reason for the misery, and therefore, the socialist siren’s songs do not interfere with the will for reform – at least not yet.

The OboxPlanet, my proposal for Hayek’s libertarian utopia

How can we counter these images, how can we create a libertarian utopia?

The idea is simple. We take our world, the earth, with all its ideologies and political tensions, put it in a box and set it aside. Then, outside the box, we envision a second planet, a “planet outside the box”, or simply the “OboxPlanet”.

The OboxPlanet is a “copy-paste” version of Earth, with the same landscapes, oceans, continents, creatures and people, but with one difference: it has no states. It has no borders, no legislators, no taxes, no bureaucracy and certainly no armies.

You have no doubt realized that the OboxPlanet is an anarcho-capitalist copy of Earth. And now you may wonder: Who builds the roads without the state? Who takes care of the poor? Who provides law and order? And what happens to challenges like Covid and climate change?

Answers to these and many other questions can be found on an imaginary journey to the stateless planet. For this, we have two options. Either we use our own imagination and explore the rapidly growing anarcho-capitalist literature; or we visit the virtual “Tourist Information Center” at www.oboxplanet.com.

A total of thirty topics are presented on oboxplanet.com – the most important tourist attractions, so to speak. As the website is aimed particularly at younger people, it covers not only basic topics, but also more specific ones such as “discrimination”, “sex and drugs”, “animal welfare and vegetarianism” and current political issues such as climate change.

That’s it. This is the simple, playful and entertaining way to illustrate an anarcho-capitalist society and present the prototype of a liberal utopia.

Your personal benefit: a more relaxed, better life

The first, entirely personal benefit of engaging with the idea of a stateless society is my promise that you will have a more relaxed, healthier and better life.

Put it to the test. Make it a habit to ask yourself how political problems are solved on the OboxPlanet, whether they are big issues like healthcare policy or everyday annoyances like parking tickets or airport security checks. The planet is at your disposal, day and night, and free of charge.

You will soon realize that your life is changing in a positive and sustainable way. Why? Because discovering innovative solutions to political issues is like exploring alternative therapies for health problems. In both cases, knowledge of alternatives leads to more confidence and optimism. You will look at the daily news and respond to the constant scaremongering with a smile.

In short, you will live a more relaxed, happier and healthier life.

“Afuera!”, away with the socialist utopias

For almost two hundred years, socialist utopias reigned supreme, utopian, subversive and unrestrained. Now they have competition. We take the strategy of the socialists and use it against them.

A mental journey to the Obox planet has a subversive effect. Anyone who ponders how political issues can be solved without a state cannot undo their insights. No matter what topic someone deals with, they will view real politics with different eyes, more critically yet simultaneously more relaxed.

The OboxPlanet however is newer, more original, more radical and more intellectually consistent than the socialist utopias and unburdened by the history of failed regimes and millions of deaths. Market solutions to political problems are, furthermore, easily imaginable because some ninety percent of today’s state laws and activities did not exist just a short time ago.

Once people envision private solutions, their implementation suddenly become conceivable. Private pension provision? Why not? Self-regulating medical drug markets? Of course! Immigration only at the invitation of private individuals and organizations who act as guarantors? That’s a no-brainer!

Finally, let’s imagine that the image of a stateless planet spreads like wildfire. Children play video games and Hollywood produces films that are set on this planet, schools have an “OboxPlanet Day” in the curriculum and universities commission research. Step by step, the stateless planet is displacing the socialist lodestar, and who knows what will happen next?

The next fall of the Berlin Wall

Predictions are difficult, especially when they concern the future.

Just 40 years ago, there was the communist East, the free West and the Iron Curtain separating the two. For me and for many contemporaries, the probability that these power blocs would disappear during our lifetime was about the same as the probability that cows would suddenly learn to fly. And then the unimaginable happened. The Berlin Wall fell practically overnight, followed by the collapse of the communist regimes, with surprisingly little bloodshed.

Hindsight is always twenty-twenty. One of the main reasons was the simple fact that people in the East were aware of a better world in the West. As long as there was even a hint of progress in East Germany, the discrepancy with the West was bearable. When the prospects for the future in the GDR dimmed in the 1980s, the tide turned. Forty years of meticulous state indoctrination, carried out with ruthless precision, possibly the most perfect surveillance state in human history, evaporated into nothingness.

The OboxPlanet, the image of a stateless planet, is the West Germany for our present world. It depicts in images and stories how a world without a state could function, and why such a society would be more peaceful and prosperous. Why shouldn’t we hope for another fall of the Berlin Wall, this time for the institution of the state itself?

The scenario is simple. People wake up one morning and ponder:

Why should I allow a group of strangers to dictate my life?

Why should I give half of my income to the state?

How could parliamentarians and bureaucrats, even with the best of intentions, possibly know what is best for me?

What gives them, people who barely know me, the right to do so?

As soon as a critical mass of individuals stop following state orders, states will disappear.

Is that conceivable? Absolutely. Is it likely? I very much hope so.


The unbroken triumphal march of socialism began, roughly speaking, in 1848 with the Communist Manifesto and Marxist utopias. The triumphal march was and is supported by ever-growing states that finance and justify themselves.

The liberal counter-movement was long on the defensive. Even the minimal statists argued with their backs against the wall. While the socialists produced the revolutionary Lenin and then ever new icons, the liberals never succeeded to the same extent. Miller’s Review ... Miller, Neil Z. Best Price: $8.32 Buy New $14.48 (as of 04:45 UTC - Details)

The counter-movement started in 1973, when Rothbard presented the libertarian manifesto “For a New Liberty”, in which he introduced the concept of anarcho-capitalism, the theory for the opposite of socialism. In 2023 Javier Milei was elected President of Argentina. Milei identifies as an anarchocapitalist, citing Rothbard, attacking the state as immoral and destructive, and presenting capitalism as the only moral form of society.

Milei took advantage of the misery in Argentina. He was able to convince voters that socialism was the problem and capitalism is the solution and the Argentinians believe him – until now. We pray and hope that his pro-freedom rhetoric will work long enough for the fruits of liberalization to ripen. Then it is conceivable that Milei will become the first in a series of anarcho-capitalist role models, a Lenin of freedom.

In Western industrial societies, other conditions prevail, mass impoverishment does not exist. Hayek formulated a different mission for us: we must counter the socialist siren songs with a liberal utopia that is so attractive that voters will vote for more freedom without suffering acute hardship.

I have tried to sketch such a utopia, the so-called OboxPlanet. The idea is simple. We put our Earth in a big box and put it to one side. Now, “out of the box”, we create a twin planet, copy paste the earth but without states, the “out of the box planet” or the OboxPlanet for short. At www.oboxplanet.com you can find ideas of what life could look like in such a world.

How can you promote the opportunities of freedom? Among other things, by participating in the construction and dissemination of a libertarian utopia, f.ex. the OboxPlanet. Then we can wait and watch how the counter-design to socialist utopias unfolds its subversive effect.

In conclusion and in honor of Milei:

Viva la libertad, carajo!