How do NotSocs, Fascists and other Traditionalists reconcile with capitalism?

Just stop shitposting please

unironic shitposting is still shitposting

Only a white society can be socialist. Remember le pen was more economically left than the other guy yet leftists voted for the other dude just because he wasnt racist

Well, all your points are 100% right. I'm just about done with Fascism as it fails to see the forest for the trees. They keep harping on the Jewish Question Something I agree needs to be addressed all without realizing, or choosing to ignore, that an all-White Capitalist society would still be one where Aryan Porky points a gun at their head and forces them to work alienated work, and live an alienated life for Porky's profit - Or die.

The only thing that is holding me back from going 100% bright Communist Red is a theological issue, but even then I know I can choose Communism and still have a clean bill of religious health. I guess there's no reason not to go Communist, I just have old sentiments that I need to sort out.

join us

Privatization and nationalism should be mutually exclusive, I don't get how people can support both.
If you are a nationalist, but you don't want the nation (represented by its elected or appointed government) to control its natural resources, you have some thinking to do.

Privatization practiced by the nazis is super similar to how the Chinese practice it and not how neoliberals practice it. I know it's the same word but confusingly enough high level government policies can be vastly different in implementation and outcomes even if they share a common name.

You talk about alienation, thats already better understanding of Marx than 99% of the aut-right has.

Consider this though:

This is the sort of line of thought that keeps me on the left, and keeps my nationalism in the background.
I feel like class division is the most prominent at the moment, and I feel more in common with other people of my class, rather than my nation or faith.
And, contrary to what people here will say, I feel closer to my culture group (european) than I do with others, even more than class. I think the "west" versus "east" struggle is at a high point right now.

I think it's safe to assume most Nazis, facists, ect you see online were raised in western countries, specifically in America, where capitalism could not be more praised, republicans run rampant and it's hard-wired in to the culture that they're doing a service for society and hard work pays off. It's been programmed in to them that capitalism is the only way, their good ol' American patriotism tells them that any other way is automatically terrible.

Because unlike the left, the right stays united when it comes to holding on to power. Capitalists in power can find roles for fascists, fundies etc., fascists in power can find roles for capitalists and fundies etc., etc.

Meanwhile the left is like a highly mutating virus, and the only way to have unity is for one strain to kill all others.

really tickles my pickle

Because capitalism is literally the art of trading.

How can you survive without trading? Just let the state give you everything for free?

You a dumb sumbitch aint you?

Excuse me?

Capitalism is not just trading and communism isn't just the state doin things.

...

Capitalism definitely is about trading things, and a stage of communism is the state giving shit out for free.

Holy shit you really are retarded. Do you have an extra chromosome by any chance?

A state to end all state?

To each in accordance to his need?

Remember?

No, you're retarded, and you keep making it more obvious with every post. Stop acting like you actually know what you're talking about.

But I do know what I'm talking about that.

Marx requires a global state that will gradually wither away.

This is the state that hands out free shit to everyone.

Where does Marx require this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

In his famous book Socialist Manifesto: Communism Is When the State Does Stuff

Doesnt sound like what you talkin bout fam

It sounds exactly like what I'm talking about.

No, you don't.

The "state", you're talking about is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and it isn't a state in the traditional sense of the term (unless you're a stalinist), it doesn't have an army or police force separate from the general population but rather consists of the armed and and organised workers waging war on the (bourgeois) state and capital in order to abolish both. It sure hell doesn't exist as some kind of shitty liberal redistributionist organisation, and it certainly won't preside over the "higher phase of communism" where distribution occurs on the basis of needs or free access. Just in case I haven't made it clear: communism is fucking stateless.

Jesus christ, not only are you treating wikipedia as a reliable fucking source, it's very clear you haven't actually read and understood the page in question. Try actually reading marx you neuronally challenged tard.

Except I do know what I'm talking about:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat
All of these are sources btw, feel free to argue against it.

It is a state that will redistribute shit.

What is a state to you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State

Like I said: it's fucking wikipedia. These articles usually aren't written by people with any understanding of the subject matter. If they had actually read marx they would know that the society being discussed in "critique of the gotha program" is fucking stateless.

Try actually reading some books rather than giving yourself a "wikiducation".

Then it aint the state that is givin out free shit in what you think is a stage of communism

Dunno where you've been, but it's criticized just as much, especially by head honchos like TRS and Dick Spencer
The ones who are advocates of it are usually ANCAPS and Lolbergs

Evidently wrong even in the text themselves.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

It is a stage of a communism, as said so by fucking Marx.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" was nothing but a dictatorship of a small elite who lorded over the proletariat like slaves. The Party was a caste unto itself.

They're either unaware of economic issues or think that it'll all be fine once we have "true capitalism" instead of "crony capitalism". In any case, the problems with the system are blamed on the Jew. Most people come to Holla Forums because of the racism, not the economics.

To be fair: many, many problems can be blamed on the Jew, but capitalism is the only system that transcends even his evil. The destruction of civilization is inherent in it and would be its end result even if there were no Jews involved in it. It's just that most people can't see beyond their limited horizon and are capitalists by default - kind of like leftists being SJWs by default, though I know you don't want to hear that.

"Cultural Marxism" is a codeword for "Jew"; it just gives people a term to use in semi-polite company. It's a meaningless term, but it's easier to associate the Frankfurt school and the liberal dipshits that came after them with "Marxism" than to just outright say that they were (led by) Jews hostile to Western culture.

Traditionalists are small-minded retards. I can understand them - they want to wind back the clock to a better age -, but they do not see the larger problems in society.

It's a propaganda war and desperate times call for desperate measures. "I support Israel's ethnostate" and such.

Asserism is corporatism and Nazbol isn't a real thing.

Is that why it needs the State to enforce contracts, bankruptcy laws, debt collection, civil suits, IP laws, trademarks, copyrights, limited liability corporations, and corporate personhood?

It doesn't need the state to do so.

You can trade without the state.

The only thing that is holding me back from going 100% bright Communist Red is a theological issue, but even then I know I can choose Communism and still have a clean bill of religious health.

I can help you with that: God doesn't exist, you're following a rinky-dink Semitic cult, and you've just split off a tiny fragment of your personality and pretend that it's God talking to you.

And if you think I'm wrong, then can you describe an instance during which God audibly (i.e. actually) answered your prayers, and it wasn't just you talking to yourself in an empty room?

And where, do you think, property rights come from? Private armies?

And why can you form imaginary persons (corporations) that, in effect, give you the right to violate contracts (limited liability; you don't have to pay your debts) and criminal law (corporations are nominally responsible for injuries and deaths arising from negligence, but can't be held criminally liable)?

And what scheme is it that anything you make up is protected in such a way that you can sue anyone who makes them same thing (intellectual property)? Is that just some natural phenomenon?

Rights come from those who have power to enforce them, thus the state, but if the corporations can afford private armies, they can make their own rights.

Yes, merchants paid the state so the state protect themselves, but before the state exist, mercanaries exist, thus these corporations can exist without the state, it's just there's no need to.

I'm sorry but you are indeed wrong, as I do not subscribe to any form of Abrahamism.

Then I apologize.

Out of curiosity: what theological issue were you talking about?

1. Mercenaries didn't enforce IP laws.
2. You're talking about private armies, which are not "just trading", as your described capitalism. The State is nothing more than a centralized organization of mercenaries that have been "hired" by the powerful to protect their interests. Trading is just the exchange of goods, and what you're describing goes far beyond that.

They definitely can enforce laws, or worse, they kill anyone who refuse to pay the merchants.
Capitalism does not inherently need mercenaries or state, it's just the simple act of trading, but obviously, merchants exist and they have to exploit any system they are currently in, whether this is feudalism or modern democracy.

how on earth is capitalism trading?

It basically boiled down to "Do I want to labor for the Divine, or for my fellow Man?' I would feel equally satisfied with either one, and choosing either one would incur no wrath or whatever, but I guess I'm going to choose my fellow workers.

Capitalism requires a market and capital, which are the principals of trading too.

Anyone can kill anyone for anything, but I used the past tense:
In the past. Before they used the State to legislate their imaginary property into existence.

So why are these things features of Capitalism, then? You said that, and I quote:

Now it seems that Capitalism includes roving warbands extoring people. Is that also part of "trading"?

Why does the divine need your labor?

Because they haven't thought of that yet, intellectual property was codfiied recently.
These things are not features of capitalism and would exist without capitalism.
That's the way the world has always been, if you want something, you trade for it, if you cannot, you rob them with your armies.

Unless for some reasons, you cannot rob people.

It isn't like that.

Have you even read the works at all?
For Nat Soc/Fascism, Capitalism is allowed so long as it isn't harming the Nation or its people. So for example, no outsourcing labor to 3rd world shitholes. But if you wanted to open up your own business, this is not an issue, so long as what your selling is not harmful to the Nation (Such as hard drugs, for example.)
I have no idea why you think that Fascism and Conservatives, which is what you seem to be making a strawman out of, are the same or in agreement in any way at all.

Call me naive, but I think it's just down to them hating the Other more than wanting to improve their own station.
Now, for the more convinced nazi types, it's all down to one simple illusion: once the Race is purified of all the alien influences, culturally and ethnically, they will naturally revert to a harmonious, pure and good society. It's a kind of reverse human nature argument, the idea that the white race in it's natural state has none of the ills we see in modern society.
That's what I got from the Turner Diaries anyway. No matter how many bad things happen, as long as the whites are purified, utopia will naturally arise.
It is utterly spooked.

Holla Forums BTFO

To hand out free shit you have to first take it somewhere. And it is taken from labour, from natural resources, from agricultural land. Money can be printed in whatever way possible, but unless it has a relationship to physical goods, labour and material, then it is worthless.

Today state already hands out free shit to certain groups of people. To very small groups in large amounts, like the oligarchs, the corrupt politicians and so on.

And to larger groups in small amounts, so they don't cause trouble. Don't resort to crime and so on. The perpetually unemployed who have children who also are unemployed, because they did not learn from their parents that you are supposed to work to make a living.

The dictatorship of the proletariat must closely watch the organization of labour of the entire society and make everyone useful. Those who do not abide will not be just met with the penalty from some institution above them. No they will be pressured to work and be useful by those next to them.

That is why the word Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The people themselves will exercise their political power, their economic interests and their social position as an useful members of society. They will not resign it to representatives, they will not allow others to exploit them and they will inspire those who fall behind to catch up.

tl;dr: You can't just take free shit from thin air.

Money is just numbers printed on paper or stamped on to metal circles. When you actually comprehend what money is and stop worshipping it like a god, then you might take a step forward towards not making a simplification like "handing out free shit to everyone".

this one gets it
welcome

It's not, though. They're edgy lolbergs.

Jesus fucking christ, you absolute utter fucking cretin, that passage is describing a lower phase of communism in which people still have to work in order to consume, it has absolutely nothing to do with a state giving out freebies. Try actually reading what you are quoting.

attention spans, mostly
remember, we live in a consensus reality. lowest common denominator always counts. if there was a system that was oppressive to all but those with truly creative and abnormal potential, it would be a pretty good improvement. most humans are still slaves.

GTFO

show me a successful society that had the majority of it's citizens/wageslaves in a position where they actively opposed their government/enslavers?

as far as I can tell, every civilisation has come to an end of sorts at the same time as the resistance of the proles, but during the most successful phases, the citizens dutifully worked (fairly or not) for their masters. Romans, Caliphates, British Imperials, American Neocolonists, they all fit the pattern. Sorry for putting burden of proof onto you so early, that was wrong, I admit. But I think my point still stands.

Fascism and Nazi is against the capitalism

It's not, or there wouldn't be vastly different cultures that share capitalism.

Your entire post is a series of unsupported assumptions, of course you don't convince anyone with it that capitalism is Capital, the prime mover, the devourer of worlds, the ultimate castration.

...

corporatism isn't sufficiently different from capitalism nor does it fix capitalism's internal contradictions and conflicts

It's because they don't make any criticism of ideology. Things works this way, and the reason they're bad is because they're run by corrupt people. They don't even register capitalism as a problem. They don't even think it's the only way humanity could function, they really don't think about it at all, like you and i wouldn't give thought that the ground is down and the sky is up. That's the reason.

Honestly, as far as I know, Asserism was just Nazism but with the capitalist economy replaced by a socialist one. Ideologically, it would remain the same.

National-Bolshevism is Russian chauvinism and nationalism with an authoritarian (totalitarian?) government, a conservative society and a socialist economy.

So yeah, pretty much the same thing, save for which nation they worshipped. Stalinism (presumably dialed down, because let's face it, it takes a pathological personality to do what Stalin did) but nationalist instead of (theoretically) internationalism.

(OP)
user, just about all communist societies were very conservative.

Corey Robin argued that the prole supporters of reactionaries who buttfuck them do have a material benefit from being part of the "master class", in as much as they're obviously superior to blacks or foreigers or women or whatever. This provides indirect material rewards, e.g. any poor white man in the South that could scrounge up some cash could have a slave, and in fact they were encouraged to, because this made sure he would never fall to abolitionism.

But I honestly think that the spook you described is an important factor. Orthodox Marxists tend to be purely materialistic, so the only non-material factor in class loyalty they accept is false consciousness. It really is a, perhaps the, factor, but we also have to take into account non-economic-class-related false consciousness, i.e. the spook you just described, and the indirect material benefits I described.

So I heard you got a Shaytan in your oven?
Read my shit lmao

Praise Jesus nigga

feels > reals

Nazis are low-hanging fruit

Fuck off retard.

But this is objectively false considering zero, as in less than any amount, of marxist societies were communist.

What the fuck is the divine?
I can't think of a way you can work for the divine without being bullshit work based on bullshit beliefs

"Spirituality" doesn't necessarily mean there are "things divine" to serve, so you better be a spiritual socialist if that's your thing and stop the bullshit about working for the divine.

Care to enlighten me?

NOT REAL FASCISM

All I'm saying is that they stayed truer to their basic premise of Fascism then anyone else and didn't take any outside capitalist funds, not that I agree with them. From a purely ideological standpoint, their a head above other fascists.

They don't, that's why they are meme

They are what the Accelerationist manifesto called "folk politics".

Both the new left and the new right, have utterly failed to address Capitalism.

You know what I mean, user.

Holla Forums should sticky a link to this thread. Fucking brilliant and well worth the effort. I didn't even see it until just now.

The left is too scared. They're too scared of being branded a "scaawee communist." They'd rather stick to the safeness of idpol. It's embarrassing when idpol redditards try to convert us on here. They get seriously BTFO.

No

And? If practically every major socialist thinker is anything to go by, such identities are simply the end result of inevitable historical processes and have no actual value in themselves (or in dumbed down I-just-discovered-leftypol lingo "are spooks lololz"), and so there's little need for "socialist" states to cater to, or preserve, such identities unless they specifically advance the cause of socialism - after which they can be expected to whither away like everything else wrong with the world.

Stop being a disingenuous cunt and attempting to imply that the overwhelming majority of socialists care about this stuff except a slim minority of NazBols - who themselves are generally viewed as disillusioned Holla Forumsacks that can't quite let go of the spooks they had before they started posting here

lmao

The Soviet Union in the 60s weren't Jews. In fact when Stalin was considering rounding up the Jews during the Doctor's Plot, socialist realism was still practiced, and would be till the late 1960s.
But of course, rather than admit or discuss this you'll just call someone a kike. This might even just be a shitpost, but it's indistinguishable from the real thing.
It's the go-to Holla Forumsyp debating tactic. You poison the well and then proclaim victory. And it writes itself now just as much as it did in the 1930s. Any argument provided just becomes a 'typical jewish trick', leaving the accuser absolved of the burden of proof.
It's funny that Holla Forumsyps consider themselves the cultural vanguard of western civilization, yet they piss all over it's philosophical and intellectual traditions.

States? What are you talking about? Cultures don't require "states".
Jesus christ. Have you ever looked at a work of art? Read a book? Perhaps just listened to a piece of music? How do you think that came to be? Do you think all of that was just generated by an algorithm?
There's more to culture than rabid flag waving and identitarianism.

...

The average Soviet citizen in the 80s knew far more about Western Civilization than any Holla Forumsyp.

The overwhelming majority on this board would argue that the Soviet Union had little to no relationship with socialism beyond its claims that it was actually a socialist state.

He said, in the thread making the bold assertion that "socialists are the TRUE nationalists/fascists/racists".

Said the person that thinks "Western civilization" is simply the sum of a handful of great thinkers.

Said the person that assumes "culture" is simply just whatever great works of art and literature that people steeped in that culture created.

Of course you can argue that "socialism" is compatible with everything "NotSocs, Fascists, and Traditionalists" believe if you assert that a socialist state wouldn't burn the great philosophical works and arts produced by Western civilization, but that's a pretty low bar to set for "defending Western civilization"

You've also failed to address my argument in >1790125 that most of what "NotSocs/fascists/traditionalists/reactionaries" want to defend (i.e. national identities, cultures, the family, traditions, actually reactionary mores etc) are essentially viewed by practically every major socialist thinkers as - for want of a better term - "spooks" produced by historical events and material conditions (i.e. "the patriarchal family was created to reinforce capitalism").

So you're being disingenuous by attempting to claim that socialists are somehow "better fascists/traditionalists/reactionaries than fascists/traditionalists/reactionaries themselves"

Coalition of state apparatus and market forces ultimately leads to state capitalism, where the interests of the national corporations(owned and/or directed by state) replace those of international and amoral ones.

Not that guy, but I feel "Western civilization" isn't the same in all of our heads. Would you please describe what's your definition?

you're entirely correct; capitalism is irreconcilable with nationalism.

which begs the question why the fuck everyone here thinks nationalism is irreconcilable with socialism

most socialist organizations that currently exist, yes, but socialism itself? socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. if the workers in an individual nation own the means of production in an individual nation, that is socialism, even if people from other nations haven't realized having a bunch of useless middlemen soaking up the fruits of their labor is fucking retarded yet.

...

Nigga wat, if anything the one thing I agree with Holla Forums is about the destruction of ( ( ( CAPITALISM ) ) ) .

And impose another form of capitalism.
You forgot to mention that too.