ITT: Debate/AMA a Nat-Pop Holla Forums Regular

no

the national identity is only a division internationally. if you're a nationalist politically all that matters is divisions within the national population.

Why shouldn't the people own the means of production instead of a capitalist class that will undermine any genuine culture in the name of profit?

Huey "1 feet dong" Long is our guy though

I mean he is not, he is the ARCH-socdem, but yea,

Do you believe an individual is existentially bound to take pride in patriotism and nationalism of their country simply because of where they were born geographically?

How's sixth grade going?

fuck off sternberg you're not actually genghis khan

Please elaborate and define this in a consistent way

When it comes to new stuff, I've been into eurobeats lately. Had a mean vapourwave phase. I'm mostly old fashioned, though. Jazz, rock and roll, classical/instrumental, historical music, etc.

A society must have some form of identity. It's the defining feature. Without something to define a society and give it direction, at least some basic sense of shared morality, history, culture, heritage, language, etc., the society loses its collective will to live and falls victim to stagnation, decay, and impending external forces. I believe that the concept of nation has the potential to be far more unifying than the concept of "Blackey kill whitey", or "Women competing against men", or "Rich vs. poor". As for capitalism, I believe in a free capitalism within the protection of the state. If the state gives individuals the means for success, the best among them will naturally achieve it, thus imparting the greatest benefit to their peers.

Bit of a jew nose, but I'd marry a stump if it was loyal at this point.

1.) No.
2.) He wasn't, and neither am I. Hitler being the devil is a bad meme, but I wouldn't consider myself a dyed in the wool fascist either. Again, nationalistic populism.
3.) Nation has at multiple points in history been the ultimate unifying factor, superseding class, history, race, creed, ideology, etc. Believe it or not, I don't think the rich have to be in perpetual struggle with the poor. I certainly don't believe the small business owner is the problem in any event. The concept of the various economic classes working cooperatively towards mutual benefit and respect in a larger societal and economic apparatus has a historical precedent.

Are they any less "The people" because they've invested their resources, or managed a business? They assume the risk, and stand to lose everything in some cases if it goes poorly. There is an inherent economic value to that. Socialists, in my perception, often confuse someone who wons the local convenience store with the people who run the international banking scheme. Especially since your "1%" policies are really just a weapon utilized by the latter against the former.

It depends on the country. All authority is worth questioning, but if that authority stands up to scrutiny, and if that nation is of the appropriate caliber, the continued success of that nation is dependent upon such things to an extent.

How do you feel about sharing a board full of civnat cuckservative zionist young republicans LARPing as fascists?

...

But there are inherent mechanics in capitalism that prevents cooperation. You can only rally the classes behind some "national goal" and other instruments of populism for so long, it will wear itself off.

Look at the profite motive for example. Technological development will never be fast enough to compensate for the fact that capitalists need a steady profit growth rate to keep in business, ergo, they have this in-built incentive to lower wages and longer work days. However, the self-interest of the workers is the exact opposite. How do you resolve this dichomoty?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_collaboration

...

oops my shitposting flag

Let's assume I'm a Briton. The way I see it, you're free to be a Muslim. But the laws of the land must come before the laws of Islam. The culture of the land must come before the culture of Islam. The heritage of the land must come before the heritage of Islam. Etc etc. You should feel free to say, believe, etc. what you want, but in the end it has to be secondary to the national identity. We should all be dedicated to making our country the greatest it can be, regardless of anything else.

Huey Long would have had you shot

Why not the world? Why only the country?

Is that true though? Admittetly, there would be no private ownership on means of production in socialism, so no privately owned businesses. But literally all we do is to turn privately owned businesses into cooperatives, if the former owner is willing to cooperate, he might even maintain a priviliged position within the firm. Corporate shareholders and baking kabals get the bullet though, no discussion here,

Okay, but why do you value, let's say, the laws of your land in the first place? Where does their legitimacy come from? Are you aware with the concept of dialectical materialism? We believe things like laws and culture were installed the reciprocally confirm the material base (that means the economic property relations between the classes). I mean, what exactly do you define as hertiage? Britain was home of the Britons, the Romans, the Saxons, the Jutes, the Normans, the Danes. It's a melting pot.

Who made those resources? The workers. Why can't you have a worker that is not paid a hundred times more work alongside other workers to manage them? What fucking risk? If it doesn't work out for them they have to work along side other people like normal fucking person. It's a risk with no loss for most people. Socialist make a huge destinction between bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie.

SHUT THE FUCK UP NIGGER
HOBBES IS SHIT
N A Z B O L G A N G
HAS DIBS ON ALL THE NIGGERS
USEFUL IDIOTS FOR THE ATLANTICISTS WILL BE REMOVED
THE PERFIDIOUS ALBION
WILL BE REMOVED

UNFUCK YOUR SHIT
READ VERNADSKY
EMBRACE MULTIPOLARITY
STOP BEING A NIGGER

Why do you fashies have such a hard-on for class collaboration? I thought you guys hated cuckoldry?

You'll have to talk to Ted Cruz about that one.

As an user once said, any genre can be w&b, or conversely nigger music. You just have consider it on an individual basis. Don't worry, none of that degenerate jazz for me.

What we have now is crony capitalism. If it is tempered, and if our involvement in the global scheme is lessened, so will our dependence. The less dependent we are on globalism, the more in control we become over our own economy again. If it is handled right, economic growth will be satisfactory to handle all parties, both national entrepreneur elements and worker populations. Reverse globalism, create state protections for a national capitalist economy, and develop a small handful of robust relationships with stable, long term international partner states.

How's eighth grade treating you? And how do you explain how the Soviet Union was mired by total ideological hierarchy, even when they had "eradicated" it from the previous regime?

I suppose the answer is the same as to why the past decade of American interventionism is a mistake. Again, give people the means to success, and they'll make something of it if they're truly capable of it. That's always been my philosophy; hand them opportunity, not results. As another example, why do you think we've done such a bum job of charity in Africa?

1.) I suppose I should have said Dems or some similar word, as I was talking specifically about typical Bernie Sanders rhetoric. My bad.
2.) The kulaks would like to have a word with you about how lack of consent necessitates communism devolve into tyranny.

Ideally, the laws of the land come from the will of the people as entrusted in it's legitimate leadership. Briton didn't elect Mohammed as PM, so why should his law come before the law of the British people? The citizens of a nation have a right to expect new arrivals to hold a certain level of respect for their host country, and an intention to integrate peacefully.

You seem to assume that economic value can only come from the working classes.
To use a factory as an example, the assumption of risk involves the cost of
1.) Acquiring the space.
2.) Acquiring and installing the equipment.
3.) Hiring a labour force.
4.) Advertising the product.
5.) Competing with rival products for shelf space and sales.
6.) Keeping the resources necessary for day-to-day production incoming.
7.) Paying taxes and abiding by regulations on the whole thing.
Among other things, on a very basic level. When you take into account that most business owners have a direct role in managing and running the business itself, it is a massive undertaking for a project that might ultimately ruin them. If you honestly expect the guys on the line to assume these risks and responsibilities, you're sorely mistaken. It won't be the workers assuming the position in socialism, it'll be the state. And please don't make the mistake that a socialist government is automatically interchangeable with the proletariat, it'll be the USSR all over again.

and the archaeological and anthropological evidence says Hobbes War of All Against All is not historically accurate

And that is why socialists seek to abolish the need for half of those inefficiencies and making every worker owner of the factory and equipment. You're argument is literally "we can't have socialism because capitalism is full of dumb shit"

oh and also the cunt believes in fucking magic. Enough of your wizard worship, read about economics instead

the dialectic is indeed in motion

So what is your economic position? I see this problem a lot among both fascists and here on Holla Forums anarchists alike, there is no concrete economic stance or theory to ground their daydream in.

And what would that caliber be? What legitimizes authority?

There's nothing natural about it and as for making you a nazi, yeah you're not that far off as a matter of fact.

Leftcoms will tell you because it was capitalistic
Tankies will tell you because it was dialectical

I'm mainly wrist deep in Leviathan rn.

If you want to talk about inefficiency, you need look no further than central planning. Any economic system without at least some element of capitalism is doomed in to be sucked dry by the very bureaucracy it depends upon, as well as the whims of ideology. To base something like economy on ideology as opposed to principle is a universal mistake.

The world needs more faith, user. Even if it's in weird dnd shit.

National capitalism within the context of state protection. Nationalize the central bank, take control of the currency. Estrange from the globalist scheme. Give people the tools to succeed, and then allow the best among them to make something of it and better their peers. Put national needs above international interventionism/humanitarianism. I could go on.

It depends on who you ask. I personally put the ability to adapt and respond to external stimuli as a high priority, considering how so much of modern western issues are mired in stagnation and ivory tower behavior from individuals totally detached from the consequences of their own actions. But as long as the nation and state serve the interests of their own people to the best of their ability, the rest is secondary. Not to mention, there is an important distinction between the nation and the state. If the state is hell, there is still pride to be found in nationhood.

I suppose next you'll be damning me for breathing air like Hitler did too. Not everyone who believes in humanity's natural propensity for social structure is a nazi fascist bigot.

When in reality, the only long term effect that "dismantling the hierarchy" and refusing to replace it will have is that your utopian state will just naturally form a new one shaped by feuds, rivalries, and ideology.

Holy shit

Try harder, please.

The part at the beginning where he defines all the shit is pretty cool, but the concepts eventually related are fundamentally flawed, still a good work for its time but outdated by more developed ideas.

If any of your arguments come down at any point to "just trust me bro" nope, never going to trust you

You're implying the US is actually trying to solve poverty in Africa which is a shockingly naïve viewpoint.

globalissues.org/article/3/structural-adjustment-a-major-cause-of-poverty

Read this book im serious

That's about all i'll take out of you.

You realize this is what a large part of the left wanted post 2007 yes?

You can't take control of currency unless you control the majority of the units in circulation, simply nationalising the bank does not necessarily give you effective control of the currency, particularly if it is traded off shore a lot like the US dollar,

Capitalism is the road to globalism whether you like it or not. All the states that could be branded as "fascistic" or at least similar to your ideology, that survived past 1945, didn't last more than half a century. They were forced to open their markets and eventually their nationalist fairyland came to an end one way or another. And that's just it, when nationalism is taken out as a policy it's a one man's dream, but once that man is gone economic reality and incentive hit.
And your utopian state wouldn't be dismantled and mangled by the personal interests of the elite? Of "the best among them to make something of it" to get more money and resources and so on by, for example, allowing cheap labor to flood in?

I haven't read all of your responses to the other posters, so perhaps you've mentioned it, but I take it that you think there should be one leader to direct the country, correct? And what happens when he dies? No rivalries? No feuds? No politicians with the hand of one of "the best" in their pocket plotting for their own gain?

Class collaboration:
The enlightenment-era democratic republic was based on an ideal of universal proprietorship, but capitalism as we know it developed as such that there are a few proprietors and a vast majority who are appendages of the machine.
People have an innate need to take ownership over their work, to own their own house, to develop a skilled trade, and so on and so on-

If capitalism is to be abolished, then whatever replaces it has to provide for that psychological need for autonomy to be viable, but historically, advocates of planned economy and abolishing private property have supported the centralizing and local autonomy/culture-disintegrating effects of capitalism as setting the predconditions for socialism

To sympathize with the small proprietor- the corner shop owner, the artisan etc, is seen by many Marxists as fascist class-collaborationism, but the proposed alternative seems to instrumentalize and break down man into an interchangeable cog even more.
I'd wager some form of economic syndicalism is the best compromise but what do I know I'm just shitposting on 5 hours of sleep

Why do you believe this Nationalist Populism will somehow not result in crony capitalism?
How will you reverse globalism, user? Especially considering that globalism is a result of capitalism's inherent constant expansion.
What makes you believe these partner states will not ever try betray you and/or invade your country, or that your successors will not try to betray or take over these partner states, considering that you want to set up a very strong internal, capitalist economy?

Would you still date her even she's a bisexual?
archive.is/lR4DH

So you have been cucked in the past, figures

I never said I believed everything he said, it's just a really good read. I especially like his stance on the qualities of political leadership so far.

Again, I'm not arguing in support of his weird dnd shit. But I appreciate faith as a characteristic. I don't expect to convince you on it, I'm just stating my beliefs.

I'm stating the opposite, actually. Or at least, if they actually intend to help Africa, they're doing a comedically poor job of it (Largely due to a fundamental/possibly willful ignorance of the typical African mindset). I could make an entire thread about this alone, actually. It's a subject I personally find fascinating.

Begone, thot.

I don't mean literal control, I just mean that it's production should be nationalized.

I think that what happened in the cold war was an isolated incident due to dramatically unique circumstances. If nationalism was in a stronger position geopolitically speaking, it would be far more prevalent today. But for obvious reasons, it took an absolute thrashing during that time.

No, I don't believe that (unless extreme circumstances call for it). I think Mosley's call for a nationalized republic would be sufficient (Adapted for a modern populist context, of course).

You're retarded, now fuck off.

Not him but economic value comes only from labour.

Only when a physical work is being done on material, economic value is created. Of course either a human being or an automatic machine can do labour. Or a slave, which weren't thought of as humans in any time there was slavery and it was legal it those forms of state. Because for slavery to be legal, there has to be some justification.

An introductory text on political economy should explain the vocabulary and provide the ways of analysis. A textbook which I can only find in Russian or Czech or any other eastern bloc country.

The economic value is transported from former owner to current one.
The value of equipment is moved from former owner to current one. Unless the current owner does the installation, he does not actually create anything here.
The labour force acts on the matter, actually creating the value. If the owner of the means of production is a part of that labour force, then he creates only what he works on, otherwise not.
An economic transformation from commodities into money (C -> M) is being realized.
A necessary condition to secure the existence of the owner's capital in the competitive market.
Constant capital are the machines, variable capital is the resources and labour force(wages). To make a profit, the capitalist must appropriate the surplus from the workers, to have the cycle Money -> Commodity -> more money.
7.) Paying taxes and abiding by regulations on the whole thing.
And this is to also make sure the capital survives in its environment.

If the capital owner is involved in the actual management which is necessary to run the business, then he does the socially necessary labour time for his company to function. If he pays himself only what the society-averaged-market-value of the management labour is, and then the appropriated profits only uses to expand his capital, then he does not usurp from the workers personally, the Capital does in its race to the bottom since there are no better ways to utilize the surplus for the society in a more efficient manner.

So if you would like to use the surplus of all workers in the nation to be used towards making the nation better and not just make the fat cat capitalists even richer, then yes I agree. Otherwise the rich capitalists only slow down the development of the nation, being literal leeches of the majority of the nation. I care about my nation and could not see how an ordinary capital accumulation left to its ways, even when all cronyism is curbed, would ever be more efficient than economic planning and rationing.

The natural flow of capital and goods in the market is just too slow and the information transfer is too slow as well. Von Mises speaks of the problem of the information acquisition of the planner. In the days of the internet and supercomputers, there is actually a way to get all this information for economy planning.

You're not a Conservative though, you're a deeply confused communist who has been lied to all his life. Don't worry we all were at some point.

I'm not saying, the left wanted it so its bad, I'm saying, secretly, deep down, you want leftism

If it works well, leadership will be bound by not only the gravity of the position, but a moral binding to nationhood, as well as a robust capacity for leadership to be held more directly and meaningfully accountable for the consequences of its actions.

As I said, reduce dependency, reduce influence. Globalism feeds on dependency, so autarky must be the goal, even if it can't be fully achieved.

I said long term, not permanent.

lolno

Actually, I've been focusing on my education. This shit is such a trap both socially, legally and economically that I don't even want to risk it yet.

i see that the right also does kaiserreich ideologies

Why do you think that? How would it be different if nationalism was the stronger position globally? Your proposal is a capitalistic system in which the economic interests of the ones at the top override any interests of the many.

The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany should have allied during WWII

capitalists allying with socialists is the same thing as capitalists allying with socialists

What is this schizophrenic bullshit.

I guess they shouldn't have declared war on the entire fucking world the second they came into power. Fascist have a tendency to remove themselves from power by pissing of everyone around them because their retarded economy can't work without sending the people they're trying to "protect" to die.

I'm a firm proponent of the idea that assumption of risk is a form of economic value, but I'm not sure I'm going to change minds about that here of all places.

Do you think all of those are free? He pays for all of those things to happen in order to enable his work force to create the physical value which sustains the enterprise. Assuming he just got an office job and never bothered, none of it would have happened in the first place. He exchanges his own stockpiled wealth for the opportunity to assume risk, enabling the business to function.

???

I hate to say it, but the writing was on the wall in a directly converse sense to what it is now. To sustain a nationalistic state following ww2 was logistically impossible in that political and diplomatic climate. Not so, anymore.
In the national context, I don't want it to be about the people at the top feuding with the people at the bottom. That's my fucking point. Class warfare doesn't need to be the be all end all.

read

I don't fall in line with Hobbes, he's just been a focus of my studies lately.

...

I wish I could, but it'd be a logistical nightmare. You really have me tempted.

I have, Long and Mosley are so ideologically opposed to one another I'm not sure how you would rectify the two, not to mention Hobbes.

I'm sure she would love that.

archive.is/q5nHa

But this is a statement of fact. The interests of the ones at the top, which happen to be universally economic before and even more so after any other "ideals" are fulfilled, are always prioritized over the interests of the many. I did not imply that there is some "class warfare", but if you have money you have influence, and it is always the case that these people with money try to increase it in one way or another.

So how will you prevent the rich messing with the rest?
etc

imagine being this naive as to think capitalists give a shit

HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGG

I take elements from both. They are reconcilable for me at least. They both embody the concept of strong men of action in leadership, which is the epitome of the hard men that are motivated by hard times.

As long as they are fulfilling their obligations and operating within the limitations of both the law and what is socially acceptable, is that a bad thing? Honest question.

The statement on it here applies to more than just political leadership, you know.

Globalists don't, that's for sure. Entrepreneurs and the investment class on a national level? Probably more so.

The point is that while the socially necessary labour time is crucial for advanced labour division to actually work, it does not create any economic value. Only the actual matter transforming labour does. But this matter transforming labour which creates economic value needs the management.

Risk is a gamble, a bet.

Actual management of the workers and the company is the SNLT (socially necessary labour time). The workers could not create the economic value without SNLT, but the management labour would be useless without the workers. So SNLT has its value, as it is labour.

One can only average the management labour and the worker's labour to get an approximate idea of how much economic value is created per hour of labour. And one can even average it with the planning of the risk-taking. But then you are moving the tangible economic value away from those who actually create it.

Compare labour involved in making a program for online commodity trading, and the money it then makes off of fluctuating prices.

What is the difference between a person who buys grain because they want to make bread, and the person who buys grain so they can sell it some time later for a slightly larger price.

Actions of who are actually destructive? Of the bakery capital owner, or the trade capital owner. Both have to accumulate otherwise their capitals will wither in the competitive market. And both have the same claim on the profit due to private property.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call it here. I'm tired a/f, and can't put it off any longer. Thanks for chatting with me, and I hope you all learned as much about my positions as I did about yours. Feel free to use this thread to continue the discourse in my absence.God bless!

Have a rare RAS pic, goodbye.

But that percieved risk only exists because the control of capital. Unless your product is some terrible shit that no one wants which is doomed to fail in any system your main problem will be to wrestle what little morsels you can out of the hand of those who have to try and start exploiting workers of your own. This is not a recipe for working enterprises.

If you have any knowledge of how capital has operated in the last couple of centuries you would know they do none of this. The law is often structured in a way thanks to corporate lobbying to ensure that when you break the law you make a profit doing so. You can illegaly manipulate the system to make billions in profit and at worst have to pay a few millions in fine.

No, of course not. But that is never the case under capitalism. It's somewhat odd to see you talking about "human nature this and that" and how "hierarchies are natural", but at the mention of real material interest you weave this veil of mystic national duty that will bind the politicians and the rich to act to how you please.

I'm sorry OP, but I don't think much fruition will come out of this discussion if you keep referring to that "moral binding" of yours as some regulation mechanism and haphazardly saying that you hope the system works. And now I shall follow my own interest and go to sleep, goodnight.

Someone needs to give me a better explanation for reconciling Long and Mosley other than daddy dictator and the BUF's racialism with Hobbes state of nature and Huey's own politics

Last one of the night, I promise. Huey and Oswald are the predecessors to national populism. They espoused different ideologies, but the meat of their beliefs are distinctly populist, and of course contain nationalistic themes.

You need to look past the names of the day and analyze the core of their actual beliefs.

It's like an evolution, in a sense.

Their endorsed policies and practices are far too different to simply have their "meat of the beliefs" be populist, Mosley was exclusionary in his populism and endorsed corporatism, even the BUF's long term goal was just LARPing as Tudor England. Long was a socdem who avoided racebaiting, was critical of fascist methods, and at best planned on making a welfare state. They both are such different appeals that "populism" loses much of its meaning.
goodnight