Okay Holla Forums I'll bite

He was right tbh. Losing a single page of Capital would be a disgrace to mankind.

I don't idolize Hitler and think he was a fool who made more enemies in the world than allies, while much of what he said was true, he became arrogant and cost the lives of millions of people.

wtf does this even mean

thats alright, bot google "wage labour and capital" to find out if such system is compatible with capitalism

...

None of that has anything to do with worker ownership of the means of production.

In regards to your other stuff, can I ask WHY it's so important to secure your race's own self-determination?

Quality culture will always arise out of a solid economic basis, so as long as that;'s covered, the only reason to preserve culture is fear of new things.

...

Holla Forums you've proven once again all this doesn't effect you and all you are completely secure about your emotionally invested politics

protip: working does in fact suck and wage labor could and should be greatly reduced.

Jews from the 19th century said the exact opposite, too, tho.

If my own race were the one's who tirelessly worked to create the civilization they worked in, to receive the fruits of their own labour and make a home for their future children to live in luxury, why should we just blindly let in people from another land who have never made a contribution to what we've done in? How can we trust that they will peacefully integrate and work with us? The incident in Netherlands has shown you can't ever trust other people no matter how long they've lived in your land and claim to have integrated.

goole, "wage labour and capital" so you get your answer

Hmm, I must have remembered it wrong…

zipperhead is ruining threads again

Pick one.
Fascism is just Keynesian capitalism with a stronger inclination towards political terror against the working class.

We're not liberals.

Western civilization is almost entirely built on the back of exploitation of the rest of the world - come on this is common knowledge.

forgot picture

You have to concede less than you think. As long as you enforce the importance of hard work and teach people to take pride in it. Patriotism is not incompatible with leftism, workers just come first. Also fuck mass immigration. It's a tool of the bourgeoise to decrease the worth of labor anyways. It has nothing to do with hospitality or race.

Because that is how the entirety of human existence has worked since the beginning of time

Then "our own race" should pretty much be ashamed of itself. Just turn on the TV and watch for yourself how decadent this society is. That's European/Western civilization for you. Now you can either dream to go backwards, which will inevitably make us land back to the same situation as today, or you can try and put an end to Capitalism.

No.

Because no practicing Communist country has ever done this to the "Workers".

Almost all of the old Empires were built out of conquest and ruling over others, if that is your argument then every nation should just be opening its borders to anyone. But for some reason we only force the Western world to do this.

Working and having the fruits of your labor go towards someone else is the definition of cuckoldry.

People align themselves based on class interest. It's why a poor, spooked white guy is utterly confused by the rich white guy inviting a rich black guy to his yacht gala and not him.

As for the rest of your post, you don't need fascism to be a nationalist, which is what you sound like. You don't need fascism to believe that some cultures just don't mix or to secure "your" people's self-determination.

ikr, taxation is theft

google "wae labour and capital" and find out if there was ever a communist country

so is property

When you critique Western civilization you hate yourself lol

It's not like the United States has done fucked up things and hypocritically cried along with NATO that the world was being against freedom or whatever next crock of shit

It isn't like genocide lead us to the position we're in

No, it all is rendered moot because a poster might be white, and that you don't like hearing it.

Well I'm not white, so if I criticize it, is it white guilt or white envy? Oh tell me Holla Forums, what do you want to explain next about the world to me, I'm so curious about your insight

Actually you'd be surprised how many of us would agree with you.

...

Do you think capitalism would implode if Western countries had to create most of their own consumer goods themselves? People seem to argue that Western countries can only be wealthy due to imperialist exploitation, but most wealth gained from unacceptable labor conditions in the third world doesn't reach the average American. Considering the unemployment numbers Western countries run and the number of bullshit jobs that have been created to keep people working, I'm not sure I buy that "ending imperialism" would be an existential threat to capitalism.

I mean, most of us think raising the minimum wage would at least be provisionally good because it would give people more money. So would bringing back manufacturing jobs that paid wages acceptable to Americans. But I haven't seen anyone suggest trying to end capitalism by making the minimum wage so high that profit becomes impossible.

yeah, every time a caveman picked an apple off a tree he was actually stealing and should've been lynched by the other cavepeople.

rightfully, we'd all just starve to death so that nobody ever steals from the commons

...

google "wage labour and capital" and find out if such ethical capitalism is possible

google "what is property?" and find out of possession is the same as property

We are anti-private property, not anti-personal property.

lol!

Not all empires from the past still exist today, so that's kind of why it's different.

For the record I'm all for more open boarders across the globe, approached practically though of course - some countries really need to get their shit together first.

This claim seems very much to the contrary of what the picture shows, could you back that up a little more?

See comrade what you're getting confused with here is that cheap labour comes from the process of industrialization from agrarian countries. That's why such cheap labour is possible, because most of the people taking the jobs have no other options or need to provide for their farmer families.

The US already went through this phase a while ago though - if labour were moved back then workers would be able to demand higher wages and therefore the cost of producing would rise to the point where almost everything we buy would cost considerably more, and due to the ever falling rate of profit the system would most definitely fall in on its self.

it's the same thing

google "what is property?"

It isn't present exploitation but past colonialism that created wealth. Diamond mining, slavery, support of genocide, all of it lead to where we are today. So criticism of past practice is entirely fair when the nation itself decries these practices

Holla Forums you just argued communism can't work because people don't eat.

More, that people especially wouldn't eat if property didn't exist

Stop being so fucking hysterical it's driving me nuts. I want to stop laughing at you.

Why is Holla Forums so shit around this time of the day? But anyways
"My own people" is a bit slippery term, you don't have much relations with many people within your nation, be it from economic or worldview-based perspective.
?
Leninist one-party rule was a strategy to establish a desired result, not an end goal in itself. If you're against, then it's okay, incredibly many people are against it.
?

ah, the essay that introduces the laughably flawed Labor Theory of Value…

into the trash it goes

When you're constantly called a Fascist for loving your people and country you just sort of get used to it. And I never said I was a supporter of Capitalism, i just think the notion of removing all the social classes, rather than uniting them is silly. The rich should be working with the poor and vice versa.

Property you claim for the sole purpose of charging rent to others is not the same thing as property you occupy for use. The former requires a state and is entirely a legal fiction; the latter exists in nature.

It doesn't matter if you don't want to denounce. You'll get wall.

any proof of the LTV being wrong?

Wisecrack had a bizzarely good video on the philosophy of Faschism and its various issues:

youtube.com/watch?v=1XJhZVmORlM

Long story short, Fascism makes makes a nation a prison, they are not free, they are not happy, nor prosperous. The people's lives and experiences are limited by the borders and constraints of their society, the only chance of freedom is through war. They live in constant fear, anguish, and antagonism. To be a Fascist is to be voluntarily wanting to be a prisoner.

I'd like to see you try.

I should've been more clear, by money powers I mean the corporatists, cronies and 🍀🍀🍀them🍀🍀🍀.

I wish underage retards like you fucked off from this board.

Various economic figures have put a material value on human emotions.

You can put laughable in front of any word. Like 'laughably emotionally invested white shrimp dick who cries about muslims" or "laughable cuckold cries white women won't fuck him and becomes a neonazi"

But ultimately at the end of the day wouldn't you rather argue out logic instead of bringing yourself into this position

Property you claim for the sole purpose of charging rent to others is not the same thing as property you occupy for use.
sure it is, it's both property and it's up to the owner to decide how to use it, not you.

what moral claim do you have to the fruits of someone else's labor?

Your main problem is that you think in a fascist framework. Your ideology colours your view of the world. Let's start with looking critically at the words you use.

The issue here is the concept of your people or peoples in general. It's intertwined with the concept of countries. If you were to look down onto earth from the sky, you would see no borders between countries, we have drawn those on the map arbitrarily. Similarly, the lines you draw between peoples are arbitrary.
Communism recognizes the arbitrariness of nationalism. As long as people keep believing in countries and peoples and keep preferring theirs over some other, we will never reach a situation that is good for all people, one country will disregard the needs of the inhabitants of another and exploit it. To prevent this, communism seeks to break down national borders to form one global state that considers the needs of all humans with no dividing lines.
As long as the concept of my or your people is maintained, globalism can't be achieved and you will either be exploiters that view others as below you or the exploited of a greater power, never equal and free.

Communism in later stages doesn't use currency anymore. The reason why we want to eliminate money is because we look critically at the profit incentive. We don't use money powers, whatever they are.
The problem with the profit incentive is an internal contradiction of capitalism. As long as you have money circulating, people will try to sell things for more than they bought them to make a profit. This leads to capital accumulation and vast inequality in the long term.
A good way to imagine this is the following thought experiment. Imagine there was only one capitalist and one proletarian in the world. The capitalist would pay the worker a sum of money to create a commodity for him and then attempt to sell that commodity to the worker for a higher price. The worker can't afford it and the system comes to a standstill. This can be slowed down in reality by having the working class endebt itself like in the US, but it will never resolve this internal contradiction.
The reason why communists want the power of the state is to use it to transform society, which means democratizing all workplaces, supporting revolutions in other sates and so on. The state dies of in later stage communism because it has nothing to do anymore.

Immigration has little to do with communism, we would much prefer to efficiently aide these people to build themselves fine countries. Capitalists like immigration because it gives them cheap desperate workers and allows them to fire locals with higher demands, all reasons for pushing it besides this one are usually smoke and mirrors.

Yeah I hate Irish people too

That's the very question communism posits, welcome aboard fellow traveler

is it really the irish, the cronies or the corporatists or the economic system as a whole?

google "wage labour and capital" and find out

property that you occupy for use is not property, it is possession

I'm not gonna lie, I like some of leftypol's coded in shitposting

Euros starting to sleep amerifats starting to get into prime shit posting hours.

You mean aussies are waking up.

spend a week polishing a turd then try and decide how much it's worth

keep in mind there is 40 hours invested in this turd. At $15/hour it should be worth around $600

but it's still just a stinky fuckin turd

How does one justly acquire a plot of land to rent in the first place, when the land was once the property of everyone? The initial acquisition was without the consent of every owners.

Absolutely none. We wish capitalists would understand this.

it's the same thing

Mein, I guess Marx has just been disproved by this one simple anonymous example posted on a Burmese knitting BBS!

Does /[pol/ ever get tired of rushing in with the same arguments only to be completely mocked for it day by day by day

Shouldn't they invest all this energy into going and making that family they aren't totally invested in having because they get off on inflation porn and emotional investment from high school girls telling them to buzz off

A thing only has value if people believe it has. Are there people in the world who would be willing to give money for a turd? Yes there are.

This tells us all you literally know nothing about Marx's LTV. A commodity has to have a use-value to someone to have an exchange-value that's determined by Labor Time

"Working" is rather an abstract term here, a wage earner will always be in a conflict of interests with the employer. Unless you have some algorithm that calculates the optimal wage that would always satisfy both sides and son on.

I hope you don't think we like corporate owners and circumcised bankers?

Are you ever gonna post nudes or what?

that doesn't disprove the law of value, what is valuable is not labour itself, but labour power, this is, the ability to reproduce something of social value

surprisingly polished shit does have value tho, have you ever heard or composte? youtube.com/watch?v=QV9x79_WYbk

any proof the LTV is wrong tho?

It is not. Because unused property requires a state to defend itself (and has come late in society), whereas personal property has existed forever.

She did, newfag.

is it? google "what is property?" and find out

well, it's not exactly the first time someone has pointed out that value has nothing to do with how much labor went into the item

She posted a shitty ass pic. I want actual nudity.

I, for one, advocate that Hoochie spends more time sexually humiliating stray Holla Forumsyps

Fascism doesn't foster any of these things
Nice spooks nerd, but given that you're a fascist you probably hate your actually existing nation and people.
We want to destroy the "money powers"
They no longer exist
Communism stresses a global revolution, so we're not liberals who want to "fight poverty" by allowing immigrants in, we want to fight poverty at the source and end imperialism which is one of the major causes for global poverty.

No

Nah? News to me if I did

Sorry, wouldn't you just rather be friends? :)

See, this kind of thinking, while well meaning is just way too idealistic and underestimates the hubris of mankind.

Yes, in theory your goals and plans would be amazing, Hell I would support it gladly. THe problem is that people by nature will find any reason to consider themselves "different" than others, and no matter how much you try to force them together their will be inevitable blood shed.

We're seeing this now with the attempt at globalization in Western Europe, rather than the immigrants of the Middle Eastern world coming together with the Europeans, they've only doubled down and are becoming increasingly hostile to one another

I get nudes from my friends too.

Study this image before posting.

google doesn't trump basic logic. I could type up a webpage that says any nonsense you can think of, and google would be able to find it. It wouldn't make it an authority on anything. You can draw all the artificial distinctions you want, but at the end of the day a person's property is morally theirs whether they are using it in a way in which some uninvolved third party i.e, you approve of or not, as long as they don't infringe upon others

Also you seem to also incorrectly understand average socially necessary labor time, which is what goes into the value of a commodity, not the individual labor time

It's not an ethical question. Would being unable to outsource break capitalism in Western countries, or not?

I'm not really debating the morality of these practices, but whether the lack of access to third-world labor would be an existential crisis-level event for capitalism.

My thinking here is that Western countries will soon just be able to automate instead, which will get their net labor costs at least as low as third world labor costs, without shipping fees and the like.

I didn't mean you were a supporter of Capitalism, I was saying that people identify with others on things more important than race, soil, and blood.

They are completely opposed in material and economic interests, Fascism gets around this by uniting them for the good of the precious State. It's no different than a religion getting people who normally hate each other to work together because they'll get to heaven faster. Do you see how fake that camaraderie is? Working together for the good of the State provides a facade of fellowship, it's bunk fam. But you, like most other Fascists, don't care right? So long as the government rules and muh bloodline gets to continue on, who gives a fuck how much people secretly hate each other? That's all Fascism ultimately boils down to: pretending to give a shit about your neighbor to make the masters happy so they don't throw you into the camps.

I harbor hatred for no one but those who seek to exploit and bring harm to my country and people, I'm sorry if you are unable to their is such a thing as a Fascist who does care for others.

stirner memes pls go

So did Oswald Mosley and you ruined his movement

why are you asking me fam, all you need to do is google wage labour and capital and find out if you can still have capitalism without outsourcing

basic logic dictyates property and possession is different

stop bullying Proudhon, we get enough shit from the marxists already

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property?

what about the tools of opression they use to exploit them, like wage labouring, property rights and credit?

People can look at automation with rose colored glasses but I hardly think the elimination of labor within Capitalist reason within states that exist to perpetuate them will be good.

I think it will end disastrously instead of good.

Look at the past. When have our governments ever stood to help us with labor rights? They haven't.

Cold day in hell when Automation in a world we live in will lead to good things economically for any of us, in a world with a gulf of income divide this immense.

Yes, the simple truth that things are worth what others are willing to pay for them, which is independent of how much labor was invested

but the LTV doesn't say that exchange values are determined by labour-time, but by supply and demand

are you sure you know what the LTV is?

Like capitalism and class society?

Like all nationalists, he would have only expanded imperialism.

I could use this entire argument for most of the old Communist or Marx-Socialists societies that existed during the Cold War. Almost every country that tried to bring about the Workers Revolution devolved into total control for the states and genocided anyone who refused

But it would also get rid of the workers, no? You've yourself noticed the existence of bullshit jobs and I don't see how we're not going into even bigger shitpile.

This is not unique to the cold war. The West didn't get here by asking people nicely.

but doess M-L revisionism actually managed to abolish value form?

We've got a genius over here. It's almost like Marx didn't at all build his economic theories on top, not besides, those of Smith and his successors, the people who discovered supply and demand in the first place.

youtube.com/watch?v=UltE6U4t8Vc

OP here, I have to go soon for a meeting, but thanks to those of you who didnt shitpost and presented your arguments.

It has given me some..insight, and I'll reflect on some of it later on.

What this user says. Marx's LTV says that labor time determines a commodities value, which is loosely approximated by the exchange value

Whether it's good for us is a point of debate, but the question is whether capitalism will be ended because of lack of access to cheap labor or will be able to keep going because of automation.

Assuming that it would in fact be an existential crisis, shouldn't we be provisionally advocating for closed borders and huge protective tariffs? Both will increase labor costs in Western countries by denying corporations access to cheap immigrant labor at home and cheap labor abroad, forcing corporations to use native labor and incur higher costs, which would lead to a capitalist collapse.

google "das kapital" to find out!

remember to google "wage labour and capital" user

Fascism got more European whites killed than every left-wing political movement combined.

We should be more focused on actually not letting automation happen altogether. People here love it far too openly.

But when Capitalism tells a child he can grow up to be a scientist if he works, and can get money from a job, only to be replaced by a machine, the conception of whatever dream offered ends

And before we even act on policy that could hurt laborers elsewhere, and home. Abroad, and local

We should dismantle Capitalism before it replaces the need for workers altogether.

Historically, this would not be good. For anyone. And this wouldn't solve people's problems and universal basic income won't be made by the time we get there.

If and when we get there we are more likely to see insurrection than legal benefit from states.

I only recall China and Russia being a case of such revolutionary coups, coincidentally in both cases the worker councils' power got diminished rather quickly. So I'd argue it is owed to the specific political model, which by no means is universal for all leftists.

You're welcome.

yeah, fuck tools.

we should throw away all our shovels and dig ditches with spoons, it would be good for fighting unemployment

Shovels and tools aren't mechanical arms and thinking machines. They're shovels and tools.

I understand the potential benefit of automation, but again, in Capitalism, these are tools to replace the need for a laborer. Unions are already extinct, the future of the world where the government can shove us aside for gigantic corporations in favor of machines is not going to be a future that ends will for anyone for a very long time.

No one but you and your community can protect your rights. Only democracy can maintain security in the long run.

Automation is just fancy tools that, like handtools, increase the efficiency of individual workers

You're going to get it whether you want it or not unless you become an anprim, since it's been happening for a long time now.

Marx says that free trade hastens the revolution, but, assuming that capitalism needs imperialism to sustain itself, wouldn't preventing free trade and free movement break capitalism? Please just explain it in a relatively short way, I don't want to have to dig through the entire book to find the passage refuting this idea.

You still need someone to purchase the things capitalists make, unless they decide to exterminate the useless working class and implement Bourgeois Communism.

...

Luddites said the same thing about weaving machines

This is on a completely different scale with completely different circumstances since this replaces laborers with cheap products to be bought.

Never denied that. That doesn't mean it's going to be good. Whatever occurs, occurs.

They're likely to do neither and make asspull compensation for workers that won't solve problems and purposeful bureaucratic stalemate will stall any answer to what laborers need

That's how these problems always roll out. Useless non answers

We can talk about how the Industrial Revolution benefited everyone too while we're at it. Some people can say without it, we wouldn't have computers.

I think people at the time would disagree that it was worth it, however. It lasted a long time, and in the end, it resulted in exactly what I predict this will. Complete worker insurrection eventually on a massive scale.

One of the greatest tools of ideology is to shape someone's view of what is natural.
Under feudalism, the church preached the separation of humanity into rulers, clergy and serfs and people would see it as the natural order of things. Under capitalism, the states, which are merely tools for the ruling class, preach that cultures can't cooperate because the capitalists ruling over the area can't cooperate out of purely economic reasons.

The Base is the economic reality and it forms the Superstructure, institutions, traditions, beliefs and ideology to justify the base. You are caught up in the apologetics of the superstructure at the moment.
As for people being unable to come together, let me offer you some contrary evidence. The USA was settled by members of all the cultures of europe and they have unified an entire continent and become one big culture, of course excluding all the brown people but you get my point. Similarly, Germany was once a bunch of tiny kingdoms and is now unified as one big country. Humanity has been trending towards unification for some time, we grew from tribes to cities to nations and I don't see why this growth couldn't one day unify all of humanity in one culture of solidarity.

But communism doesn't even need this. You only need tolerance in the sense of nonintervention, communism is decentralized and cultural differences can maintain themselves after a purely economic revolution. There are islamic branches of communism for example, which could be temporary solutions until we figure out the best culture.
On a sidenote, western culture is in various ways pretty shit. You don't generally see it because you live in it, muslims have the same problem. Look into some cultural criticism, it will show you ways in which we could be better.

Difference in racial intelligence is debatable, but what's not debatable is that it's debatable.

Anybody who told you that intelligence cannot vary by ancestry because race is a social construct was uninformed or intentionally misleading you. We will be pretty sure about the how heritability of intelligence quotient relates to race in the next five years, though, because gene sequences that correlate with intelligence are rapidly being discovered, and you can already calculate ancestry with a fair degree of accuracy.

Read Razib Khan if you want to be open minded about this.

it depends, imperialism is not necessarily the same as free trade, we are no longer arguing the scientific aspect of capitalism, so there is no true answer

I don't think that we should oppose free trade, because tariffs and protectionism do not stop exploitation, instead we should engage in worker coops and countereconomics for both internal and international trade, it won't matter what sort of currency the bourgeois uses, we would have our own, this trade doesn't need any form of ideologiccal background other than the disdain for boureois economy, which is why both nazis and panafricans and so on could do away with such form of free trade, that would encourage the revolutionary movement and also do away with bourgeois forces

It's gonna be funny when Luddism returns as not only a perfectly legitimate practice but one with actual intellectual theory behind at that.

A bold prediction!

only time will tell

If you ran the US you could jack tariffs up so high that importation of goods becomes nearly impossible. But, an isolated capitalism would still continue to function within the US, until it broke in short order due to declining profit rates, right?

This brings up another question: Assuming this theory about imperialist expansion is true, If humans figure out how to colonize other planets, would that mean capitalism continues forever?

well, this thread has been fun

I've learned that:

Property isn't property if Holla Forums doesn't like how the rightful owner uses it

LTV is synonymous with supply and demand even though they're pretty different

Automation is bad and Luddism is coming back into fashion

Thanks for the laugh, leftypol. Good luck with the revolution!

And don't forget, if you were really a communist you'd join a commune… posers!

and then you have hundreds of thousands out of work because their jobs rely on exports that no one will accept because you decided to not allow them to sell their own products inside the US, so no, an isolated capitalism wouldn't work in the US

the problem here is that you will just accelerate fascism, not communism, because communism comes after capitalism becomes a necessity, not after capitalism has a crash

yes, the human virus must remain in his rock unable to spread their filth to the outside galaxy

The industry and agriculture have been indeed pretty automatized over the years while the services have remained mostly intact, so Luddites were kind of correct.

but it is, it is simply theft

no they aren't, and you failed to prove so

why would I join a shitty commune if I have responsabilities to cover in two worker coops you dumb autist, have you ever had responsabilities other than cleaning cumstains in your desk?

Nobody is against automation itself.

Everyone knows that intelligence is partially heritable. What is disputed, and rightfully so, is that this hereditary aspect is necessarily different by race, which is extremely unlikely and based largely on questionable data: iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010b.pdf

"HBD" types are acting like the ebul liberal truth will finally be shattered when it's already basically accepted how improbable it is, to the point where declinists basically have to jump through hoops to ignore I Q itself to find a reason to say nonwhite genes are making people dumber.

I also don't really care what some computer nerd with a MATLAB subscription thinks, at least Arthur Jensen was an actual expert on the topic.

No, Empire expands not for resources but for Labour and consumers, unless we enslaved (and then freed) aliens or something.

but empires also expand for resources, Marx recognizes this in the Gotha text

MUH TOOTHBRUSH
Lifestylism is meaningless.

Been there, done that in the first half of XIXth century, but we figured out that's both counter-productive lifestylism and utopian autism.

MARX DIDN'T BELIEVE IN THE GODDAMN LTV!

The LTV tries to explain why prices are what they are, saying that the more labor an object requires to make -> the higher the price. Marginalism arguably refutes it.

The Law Of Value can be summed up as "any object with an exchange value also logically has a use value". That's it.

You may negotiate with a seller whether an iPhone should cost $150 or $200. This is the realm of exchange-value, which marginalism and the LTV deal with. Regardless of what the eventual price is, however, someone ultimately had to refine the silicon, etch the chips, program the software, refine the plastic from oil, assemble it, transport it, write instruction manuals, design the aesthetics, and market it. These are all descriptions of use-value being added - someone doing the actual work so that the buyer doesn't have to.

Unless we're able to pull commodities out of thin air and I'm in next-level reality denial, it's obvious that the Law Of Value is true. It's almost a tautology, except for that mainstream neoclassical and Keynesian economics have their heads in the sand.

So you support slave labor while saying working sucks. How is that not total hypocrisy?

Because it caused the bloodiest war in history?

That's not at all what he said. False dichotomy spotted.

He's saying that we should reduce work to the mininum that is needed to produce what people will actually use (production for use) and aim to automate work entirely so that people can spend their time how they wish.

Fascism lacks a consistent ideology. There hasn't been any fascist regimes citizens were assured to be safe. The leaders are often quite unpredictable. You never know if or when they will turn on some group that includes yourself. Socialism doesn't do anything against your " own people" it only helps them and yourself. If it is helping people outside your group as well that also helps your in group and yourself because it creates less reason for conflict, improves education,lowers crime. When the living conditions in all countries is improved it gives people less reason to migrate so they will just stick to their own culture they fit with on their own.

liberal-tier post

Not an argument

...

DELETE THIS

The OP isnt even bothering to stick around it seems.