Certain things the author got completely wrong (rise of racial politics, actual liberalism of thought), but his level-headed approach got him 75% of the way there.
Though culturally he was eerily correct re: State-as-family.
> Though culturally he was eerily correct re: State-as-family
That's not particularly surprising as it was one of the key philosophies of the age: the Russian revolution was only a few years old (and didn't spring from nowhere) while some of the competing philosophies, like anarchism and bimetallism, had burned out.
Though culturally he was eerily correct re: State-as-family.