NatCap Debate Thread

No dude but you will naturally look out for opportunities to drive down wages and production costs which you can find in underdeveloped countries

A communist state can access the global market too, it's call trading.

So, you're a Fascist with a new meme internet name. Like Ancaps only with even more autism.

if capitalism is so great why does it need a state to regulate it?

What like Paris Hilton and Hillary Clinton and George Soros?

Capitalism objectively does not do this.

Nope, you believe in the state and capitalism, I believe in no state and no capitalism.

Furthermore, just to finish it all off, if the state is regulating capitalism, and capitalism controls the state through lobbying and bribes, then the state doesn't control capitalism, capitalism controls the state AND they are essentially one and the same thing. Generally in history you don't get one without the other.

Oh and also

you're a Kenysian, you're just to retarded to know who John Maynard Keynes is, and you get your ideology from other famous National Capitalists such as Lauren Southern, that bastion of economic theory.

Top Kek.

It can't as it's a contradiction.

A socialist state (communism means statelessness) doesn't need to drive down wages because it has production for use instead of production for exchange.

Is communism really so difficult to understand? Why is it that every idiot who comes here making claims about it has absolutely no idea what the basic concept even is?

My communist country need oil. I found a country that's willing to trade me oil in exchange for something my country can produce which are military equipment. See? Easy.

Your impossible chimera has no needs since it can't exist.

The workers produce good to get collected by society so it can be distribute among the workers according to their needs.

That's not something you believe. That's a fact. Capitalism falls apart without regulations.

Which means no market.

So if you society needs a resource from another country, how you plan on getting it? By force?

That's socialism not communism. Communism is stateless.

Communism comes from the word community which means you are in a group and your group needs resources from another country, how you plan on getting it?

There's your issue. Communism would have to be global. There wouldn't be any other countries.

Trade, you idiot. This isn't a hard question.

I know it trading but some other guy here was like "that marketing!" and now I got some other guy going "you can't have communism until you 1vsTheEntireWorld"

Yes, communism is worldwide. A socialist country trading goods or labor is inevitable until there are enough socialist countries to where they can all produce enough goods and services to meet each other's needs. After that, even cursory contact with capitalists won't be necessary and we can enact the final solution.

Well I live in Canada so the only thing we would lose by not trading is tropical produce.

You're a fascist, wonderful.

This guy gets it.

Not all countries are bless with natural resources.

There is a difference between production for exchange and production for use m8.

Communism is global. There are no other countries.

Globalizing communism have been tried and failed.

And all your entertainment if you are not sick of Justin Beiber and Red Green yet.

"Global" is a defining characteristic of communism. It is not something you put borders around.

By the way, global capitalism has been tried. Do you call what we have now a success?

==LIKE POTTERY=.)\x

bottom text

I'm just saying Soviet Union tried to spread communism and it only got so far before it collapse.

At least it's exist until there is a better system.

I'm republican monarchist myself, I'm glad to find another enlightened fellow like you OP

It rare to find a person who sees communism and capitalist as different set of rules, but the only thing that matter is a nation with a strong leader.

As the goal of capital if it's continuous reproduction, the system does not cope well with economic regulations imposed upon itself and its managers(capitalists), which means your beloved nationalism or socdems' petty attempts of implementing capitalism with human face are forced to submit sooner or later, even if it takes a fucking century for the economic forces to infiltrate and break it down. It would more coherent if you advocated feudalism which relies on stability rather than on continuous economic expansion, but even you should comprehend it's not an option unless nuclear war happens and cities around the world collapse.

This is literally what we have now

so a regular nazi?

Oh goody, it's this meme again.

Hey, if you want to stay rich, you got to learn how to stay on top of the pile.

Well my idea of NatCap is feudalism(corporations) run by a dictator.

Oxymoron, corporations only seek profit, they are not bound by idealism, mass immigration and cheap labor are preferable to them

I know what you are saying, and it is fundamentally wrong. The USSR was not communist to begin with. It was arguably a particular brand of socialist, hence "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." The concept of one country enacting communism is complete nonsense. Communism is a goal to be achieved by eliminating class divisions. It is not a form of state.

An economic system clinging to power while the people maintaining it are miserable is not a good thing. Existence is not success.

Being rich, it's damn near impossible to fall from the top. Downward social mobility is no more fluid than upward social mobility.

You need a state to gather the goods produced by the workers and distribute the goods.

If my job is to produce food and my house is damaged, I expect a repairer issue by the state to come and repair my house.

EVERY FUCKING TIME
Feudalism relied on peasants tied to land and giving products to their noble superiors while keeping the rest for themselves. I could bet my fucking kindey you're not going to implement that, but rather have another wage-labour system(ie. rebranded capitalism), which is granted since you mentioned corporations. Oh, and your quality economic system would morph into regular liberal capitalism sooner or later, as it had before every single time.

Why have you ignored my posts above? You afraid Mr """"""""""""""National Capitalist""""""""?????

OP is actually an accelerationist shitposter

Corporation is basically modern feudalism. In the middle age, you agree to serve a lord in exchange for protection. In modern time, you agree to work for a company in exchange not being in poverty.

What's your question again?

Why would you want to implement that?

It's a good argument for BTFOing retards like ancaps who believe under capitalism you're fully free to do anything. It's false however from perspective of economic structure, feudal economy, due to its agrarian nature and bigger focus on self-sustainability functions much more differently than the wage labour-based(ie. capitalist) one which needs to expand to sustain the market economy. You're just advocating older form of capitalism which will bend over sooner or later to the market magic like every single quasi-mercantilism advocate before you.

Learn to read nigga.

I did read. The subtext is that feudalism is somehow good or worthwhile.

I have no idea how did you reach that conclusion.

Well that one thing we can agree on which is that ancaps need to get line up on the wall.

I concur.

...

In what ways?

Google this wonderful man

All of these

Reactional Nukes, you can't beat that autism

Capitalism will self destruct without regulations.

Supported by jews, funded by jews, a fucking jew.

Skilled workers and business owners disagree

You are not even on the coin I'm talking about, you share the coin with AnCap. You support the worse ideology ever. It's weak and it's a joke, just like AnCap.

There is always corruptions, in both communist and capitalist society. The question is what steps you take to combat corruption.

Nonsensical gibberish

Right, I accept that, so why keep capitalism if it is constantly collapsing and you keep having to fix it?

So….capitalism DOES NOT "support the strong or most productive in society" then… does it.

well then why does it reward these jews you hate so much and not the average working person?

The corruption comes from

1) The state

2) Corporations

I will abolish the state and corporations

Did someone say nukes?

That's precisely why I'm anti-capitalism.

You should be rewarded for working hard and being created. You should not be rewarded for having people working hard on your "property" and giving you the wealth they produce, likewise you should not own the creations of people that have been dead for a century via "intellectual property".

Private property in any form is decisively anti-meritocratic. The only things you should have that mean anything are your own strengths which manifest themselves self evidently in your work, if you need state-supported institutions like "property" to succeed then you are not strong at all, you are a vampire that subsists on the labour of others.

and just in general, who are the academic theorists behind "nation capitalism" could you maybe point me to some books or something?

Where the hell do all those lovely Bookchin memes come from?

If it does, how come a South African platinum miner or a Pakistani textile worker live in squalor while paper-pushers sitting at the top of comfy New York office buildings enjoy indecent levels of wasteful luxury? Surely you wouldn't claim the latter are "stronger" and "more productive" than the former?

No, thanks. We have enough edgy, retarded, meme-loving Holla Forums renegades roaming around here as it is now — we don't need one more.

Check pic related

You mention George Soros, he single handily buy country's currencies, crash it, and somehow profit off of it. In capitalism, he is like the super sayian.

At least the average working person actually got a chance to better his position.

The drawbacks from corruption is nothing compare to a stateless society. You can always go live in Africa if you support a stateless society.

are you 13

people are replying to this shit?

...

Even fascist leaders said their economic recovery plan was very similar to The New Deal.

So what happen to your property when you die?

Old enough to read a book

Apart from war-stricken areas where central authority has collapsed, most African countries have strong states that are much more authoritarian in nature than European governments.

Well, it sure as hell doesn't sound like so. What books have you read?

I don't believe "property" should exist. The only things you should have are your possessions and your own skills and strengths.

This is why I like the socialist system. You don't have a capitalist economy that depends on spooky shit like property and money. The only way to get ahead is by being a quality person.

A perfect place to start your stateless and communist society. I'm sure the locals will love you.

So if I build a house and died, who gets the house? Non of my children can't inherit it?

Funny you should mention that, because that is exactly what actually happened. You know before the revolution was toppled by a U.S.-backed military dictator.

Why would your children want it? Unless they still are children they are already off living in their own homes.

In principle yes, I don't believe inheritance should exist either. It's also anti-meritocratic.

In practice? Maybe not. Depending on the value of the possessions in question you could possibly write a will to "gift them posthumously". A house probably wouldn't fall under this though, but I think it would be acceptable to swap your own house for your father's house with the government if you wanted it for sentimental value.

If your father got a nicer bigger house, I'm sure you want it, right? No seriously, who gets my house after I die?

If you're not able to get an equivalently nice big house as an independent adult why would you deserve the one your father got?

My father had years building his house, adding more room to it while I barely left the nest. So he had much more time building a bigger house than me.

God no. The last thing I would ever want is to stay in the same place that my dead father lived. My life would feel like a waste if all I ever did was to live exactly like my father did. My home is mine, not his.

Who cares?

Then spend years building your own house. You yourself said it in the OP (assuming you are OP)

You didn't work hard building it. What should it be given to you for? That's just rewarding someone for doing absolutely nothing.

The only thing you're entitled to as someone's child is their genetic material.

Who gets the house when I die? If it can't be inherit than what the State is going to do with the house?

I can't be arsed to follow this whole conversation and I'm not the same guy, but if one considers that there are tons of houses in many countries that are unoccupied and several other people that could live in them and are homeless, it is unlikely a house you built yourself would need to be kept after your death by the proletarian state. If your sons want to live there, then there's no reason not to let them.

I dunno, probably depends on the exact situation. Maybe nothing at all.

Who really cares?

Whoops, forgot to put my flag back on.

I care, I'm curious how your inherit system work in your nazbol society?

...

So let me guess, in your society, men do all the work and if they refuse, they line up against the wall? Correct?

When I say "depends on the exact situation" what I mean is the house would probably be reserved for someone who would like to live in the area, has a job of status comparable to the father's job and has a need for a house with so many rooms - for example if they have a family of their own. In the event no such person exists then why do anything with the house? Just maintain it until it becomes necessary.

I also mentioned earlier if one of the children has a house of their own and wants the fathers house they could swap - giving their house to the government and allowing them to move into the father's. Particularly if they have a family of their own and could use such a big house - in the event they don't it would also be an idea worth considering that they could owe a debt to the government equivalent to how much bigger the house is compared to the one they traded which can either be paid of or reduced by a certain amount for each child they have - for instance if they swapped a one bedroom house for a four bedroom house the debt could be considered cancelled if they had 3 children.

Forgot my flag again.

Yes.

I think you will like this person I know who wants to treat men like breeding stock.

I need to do the same job as my father, live close to my father, and pop a kid for every room that classified as a bedroom in the house just to inherit the house?

Not necessarily. I was describing two different situations for who gets the house.
In the event none of the kids get the house it would make the most sense to give it to someone with comparable need for it. Such as someone with a similar job, with a similarly sized household.

On the other hand if one of the kid trades their house for it it's on the condition that they either work for it or create a household big enough to warrant it.

Well yes. Forgetting who "deserves" the house for a second. If you don't have a family big enough to fill it out what do you even need the house for?

Stop, stop, we can only gulag you once.

So if I go full blown autistic mode and build a 18 bedroom house, what happens then?

Upon your death the government would probably realize what a ridiculous idea that was and turn it into apartments.

Or maybe some Mormon couple would be interested in it.

another bait thread, mods are fucking garbage

So if I build 18 bedroom house, convert it into an apartment, fill my family in it. Would this work?

I'm not sure what you mean.

You build an 18 bedroom house, convert it into apartments, and give your family an apartment each?

I build a 18 bedroom house, got state permission to convert it to apartment, already have family living in each apartment to fill out the apartment. Now the question is, who inherit the apartment and manage it when I die?

I'm not sure you understand. In socialism there are no landlords.

The government is getting the building no matter what happens in that case.

Somebody must manage the apartment and keep track who lives in those apartments.

Yes.

The government.

yes and the government must assign somebody manage the apartment unless every apartment owner works for the government.

There are no apartment owners, dude. At best you could consider all apartment buildings to be government property.

Likewise you cannot inherit a job. Whoever is going to be managing the apartment is the regional housing authority.

So they send somebody from the government or pick somebody to be regional housing authority?

There already would be a regional housing authority. Generally the local council is in charge of that region's public housing and what would happen is the building would be incorporated into their authority.

So what's the requirement to become a local council and how many people are usually in a local council?

I'll be back later on, I had fun in discussing how to equally distribute the wealth.

Well the government establishes them to be the regional seat of government authority and local representation. Not unlike city councils here in western capitalist countries.

As many people as necessary. A city with a population of 5 million would need a bigger council than a town of 20,000.

Does the local council need the group to decide on what happens on a daily basis or does he got the authority all by himself?

I don't think you understand.

City councils and housing authorities are something we have right now. And housing authorities aren't individual people, they're bureaucratic bodies.

So it takes a group to decide how to equally distribute some dead man's house? It sounds like a long process since you need everybody's votes and the investigation to make sure it's fair.

100% certain if the first name that pops into the recommend to get the house, they will vote on it to get it over with regardless if the guy is a related or not or even have enough kids for the house.

Yes. It's NazBol, if you came expecting small government you came to the wrong place.

It's insanity that what I call it. People die everyday, people move from one location to another, and sometimes get physically remove by police. To keep track of all that sounds like a nigthmare.

Except, you know, how the government already does it with minimal problems.

The reason the government dose it with minimal problem is because they just need to know who own the house. If the guy dies, whoever is in his will get the house or whoever the closest relative like a son or daughter.

Yeah, and in this system if the guy dies the government owns the house so it's even easier.

I can image how the system work.

Scenario 1

1. Old man dies and have a 4 bedroom house.
2. It takes days/weeks/months to notified the city councils by the hospital.
3. City council make a date for the case of the old man set for how many days/weeks/months or even years.
4. City council finally open the case and sent an agent to investigate the house to make sure it still have 4 bedrooms and nothing is added or destroyed.
5. City council check the case again after getting agent results which took days/weeks/months.
6. City council check a list to see who is able to get the house and 3 family pops up.
7. City council send an agent to investigate all three family houses.
8. After days/weeks/months, report says that first family didn't had enough people for the house, second family refuse to move, and the third family couldn't get in touch.
9. City council decide to put the case aside until future notice which is forever forgotten.
10. Old man's family still live in the 4 bedroom house during this whole time.

Scenario 2

1. The old man dies with a 18 bedroom house out in some rural area deep in the woods.
2. City council was notified of the death after priest bury him.
3. City council send an agent to investigate 18 bedroom house.
4. City council got report from agent and look at the list to see which family can inherit the 18 bedroom house and the result shows none.
5. City council decide to give up on this case and bury it until it pops up again if it ever pops up.

I can also write the process of how the City council relocate the family that was living in the old man's house next.

We don't need shitheads like you, you'll do more good to the left as the self-destructive right-winger you are

U wot? You realize this is the 21st century with internet and telephones?
I don't think so. If the family want the house it should be their job to try and get it. The system is already against inheritance in the first place, where's the sense in doing it for them?

Nah, nigga. There are no priests in NazBolgolia.
We already addressed this topic and I already told you the government would just convert this ridiculous house into apartments. No one would inherit it.

Yes, because you know how my imaginary system that exists only in my head works better than I do apparently. It's not at all that you're writing absurd strawmen that forget important details that I already told you.

In even 21st century technology, I wouldn't know if somebody is selling a house unless they put a sign out. The only people who got a good chance of being the first to get the house are the people that know him which are his relatives.

A rural place out deep in the woods? Not a lot of people have skills to survive out in the woods. Even if you classified it as an apartment, you still need to find families who also have skills to live in a rural area.

The house isn't for sale though. There are no markets in this system.

I think a big part of your misunderstanding is that you don't really know what socialism is. And even then what I'm telling you is much closer to our current system than purer forms of socialism.

No you don't. Just because you have housing in an area doesn't mean you need to fill it. And if it becomes inefficient to maintain it you can always just demolish such a retarded building.

So it's the government job to inform me that a house is ready for ownership.

So if I am able to maintain a 18 bedroom house, I can keep it? Now we are getting somewhere.

No the government's job is to match people without homes to the homes without people.
No that's not what I said at all. No one is allowed such a ridiculous house. It's an insult to zoning regulations and planning permission.

Or somebody who wants to rise a family which can't be done in a 1 bedroom house.

So if the government finds a 18 bedroom house in the middle of no where and nobody lives in it, it must be destroyed?

...

Precisely, match the people who need homes with suitable homes.
Yes. No one is ever going to make use of it, it's just a massive waste of space that's better cleared to make way for something else before it starts to fall apart.

Like building a 10,000 foot cock jutting into the skyline.

Post Pino Cuck Memes!

So if a disease, war, or famine killed a lot of your people, you are going to ask them to start downsizing their house or have it forcefully demolish?

A classic

I like this one too.

Ask who? No one lives there.

You just said nobody lives in it.

And you said if nobody is living in it, it must be demolish.

Don't mind about my barrage of questions, I merely trying to strengthen an argument by finding holes in the logic.

As for distributing the wealth, you must think in a military mind set. Is it easier to distribute bullets to your men equally down to the last bullet or just handing them clips?

Never before has projection been so pure and blatant. Redistribution of wealth from those who create it to those who create nothing by means of guys with guns is precisely how capitalism functions. Communism, and to a lesser extent socialism, is about those who produce being able to have the full value of what they produce. It is not "wealth redistribution" so much as it is stopping the redistribution that is constantly happening.

It would behoove you to first know what that logic is. If you are looking for gotchas, you would be better off reading post-left theory, since that is what it is entirely dedicated to.

To seek to abolish the capitalist form of production by establishing "true value" {D. K. G. 78} is therefore tantamount to attempting to abolish Catholicism by establishing the "true" Pope, or to set up a society in which at last the producers control their product, by consistently carrying into life an economic category which is the most comprehensive expression of the enslavement of the producers by their own product.
t. Engels

Is there any bigger contradiction? Capitalism has absolutely no respect for culture or nation.

People should not work for society, society should work for people. A society that exists for its own sake is an aberration and should be removed from existence, by force if necessary; the gamification of society, people running in metaphorical hamster wheels for less-metaphorical scraps, is inhumane and evil; people are biological constructs shaped by evolution and thus generally do not need to be forced to be productive when they have an intrinsic urge to do what they need to survive.

Though you are at least correct that state authority is required for capitalism. Ancaps are literally too stupid to have an opinion.

Engels was talking about the means by which capitalism is to be destroyed. What he was not saying is that it is ultimately a bad thing that producers will receive in kind for what they produce. There is a significant difference between communism and the means by which communism must be achieved.

Of course not. It creates both.

...

Neither of course being of any material, appreciable value aside from the platitudes they're accorded - as an idea. In their practice, I'd hope you'd recognize that the culture and modern state are hardly things to be proud of

you deserve a (you) for that one

The state does need to regulate capitalism but capitalism seeks to destroy every regulation placed upon it. It's an inherently unstable setup where you ultimately have to run as fast as you can just to stay in one place.

Absolutely goddamned right. The only things that are worthy of pride are personal accomplishments.

That's pretty hot tbh