Holla Forums

Of course not. I donnae want to get banned.

Well, there is the very likely possibility that we are using different definitions of capitalism.
I would define it as private production for profit.

...

I would agree with that definition.

*Privet production for exchange for profit.

Good point comrade

Well it's kind of complicated actually. The Italian fascists wanted to make corporations subservient to the state, which entailed merging the state with corporations. You'll actually find a lot of people here who think that the USSR was capitalist because the economy was ran for by corrupt bureaucrats who used the system for their own personal gain.

What nazis were opposed to this definition of capitalism, and why are you not a communist?

No.
I mean Nazis don't now or have ever opposed capitalism.
You don't either.
You just believe the same system with the same financial incentives will work if we make other ethnicities go away.

Still nationalism, everyone should feel free to have pride on their country beyond left and right political barriers

Most people who subscribe to Communism dismiss the values that motivate me as 'spooks' and the Swastika is a beautiful symbol.

Obviously it didn't work. You can't rely on Capitalist swine to work in the interest of the People, just as you can't expect a dog that's been trained to bite your throat out to not in fact bite your throat out.

Wrong, I oppose Capitalism as defined as the 'for profit' mode of production.

What is a nation and why do you have a right to take pride in it?

Nationalism isn't taking pride in your country, By being a nationalist you're merely supporting the bourgeois modern nation state that arose in the 18th century.

Super.
Then you're not a nazi.

I'm not a full-Red Communist either, because I value Blood and Soil.

Mine owner: Hey wanna work for me?
Miner: Sure, what do I have to do?
Mine owner: Pretty easy, mine the gold, give it to me and I give you money, what do you say?
Miner: Sounds nice

Nationalists almost never love their really existing countries.

Nationalism is exactly as you say, which is why I'm not a Nationalist. Instead, I promote Blood and Soil as the basis of National Identity, as well as the idea that since the working class represents the vast majority of the Nation, and Capitalism exploits them and grinds their bones to dust, Capitalism should be opposed on the grounds that it's harmful to the People.

Then why do yoy support the plundering and marginalisation of foreign ethnicities when you oppose the plundering and marginalisation of the working class? Why not stay consistent?

I love my country's history and culture, this is what nationalism is to me

True, but that's because the nations of today are led by those that do not have the nations' best interests in mind.

Agreed, they are the same.

Nationalism relates to some kind of unquestioned support for an nation-state, which is completely unrelated to an appreciation of history and culture.

I'm not Imperialist either. Nazi Germany's unsustainable economic policies which would lead to violent expansionism, should not be copied.

Read Cockshott
reality.gn.apc.org/polemic/antina.htm

Why constrain yourself to the ideas of those who came before? I promise irl your country's legendary figures smelled gross and were kind of autistic

You mean, for example, supporting my country in war?

Well, any Blood and Soil doctrine anywhere would entail the displacement and dispossession and discrimination against millions of people. You can't have your cake and eat it too, I'm afraid.

What elements, if any, of nazism that were exclusive to it do you advocate then?

literally read Rafiq

way to show how much of a brainlet you are dude

Supporting the nation-state named after your ethnicity, sure, simply on the basis that *this* hierachacal administration with alienated power that doesn't care about you speaks your language.

Ideas can change to suit the People's needs, especially if those ideas are all about serving the needs of the People. BTW many of the best men to ever live smelled gross and were Autists.

You miss my point entirely since my whole point is to knock great men off their pedestals yes including Marx. Even if their ideas were great and necessary for their times it does not mean that diverging from their ideas won't be necessary, and confining yourself to the limits of the world they lived in is stagnant, dull, and even dangerous depending on the need at hand.

Holla Forums dont associate with us. you honestly only bring bad reputation to anything you touch.

What I'm trying to say, I love my country, my language, my race and state, I will fight for the land of my fathers

Not necessarily, so long as there's a relatively similar heritage and culture, and the presence of the minority isn't an existential threat to the historic majority, I see no reason to boot the minority. A Pole should find welcome in Germany, but an Arab should be considered an outsider.

List them out and I'll answer.

True, I understand what you're saying. However there are plenty of ideas that still hold true, even if little details have to shift.

That's fine and all but you could just say "I'd fight for my friends and family" and functionally mean the same thing. It just sounds "nobler" and you'd be admitting to functioning off of emotion instead of higher ideals.

This is true of any radical ideologue though. America sucks, and the type of liberalism it's founded on is not conducive to the future of the ethnic group that created it, and sustained it in spite of its pozzed foundational mythos.

My higher ideals would be to perserve my nation as it is and defend it from it's enemies, so that the people of my nation can live together in peace

see

This doesn't mean it's wrong to protect National Identity. Syria wouldn't be Syrian if its inhabitants were replaced with Americans, Russia wouldn't be Russian if Germans lebensraum'd the place. You understand?

Of course none of us disagrees with this or we wouldn't be discussing marxism or other old socialist theories. But I find that nationalism allows people to too easily skip the step where the analyze and understand what the old ideas mean and the context they were articulated in and skip right to the reverence and dogmatic practices. I just think that, for a thinking man, nationalism is a redundant step.

Those are all emotion based arguments (which, again, is fine. humans are emotional and shaming people for acting on emotion is meaningless). The focus on "fighting for peace" is an interesting bit of double-think that illustrates this.

I'm not a Nationalist. I don't believe my country is better than every other country out there.

I understand the motivation, but I don't agree that it is entirely rational. Even in your Syria example it's based on a relatively recent constructed national identity. Why should you feel national pride in being predesignated and partitioned by France? Is it more Russian to fight for communist ideas now that it's part of their national history (even though they arguably became less "russian" during the communist experiment), or is it more Russian to look to the time of the tsars (even though it was less recent and arguably less defining to modern day conceptions of the country)?

I don't think nationalism requires you to think your country is the best per se, just that there is some drive to "maintain" it in some way

Right wingers in this thread: what is your position on the JQ? There's been mostly agreement in this thread and I'd like to hear from y'all about an issue we probably disagree on. If you think there is a Jewish problem do you think Jews are degenerate either on a cultural or genetic level?

Because your Identity is your heritage and you can objectively benefit yourself and your countrymen by taking pride in who you are and working to improve that legacy as your ancestors did before you to improve your material standing before you were born. Even the homeless (I'm not saying homelessness is acceptable) benefit from good infrastructure.

but both syria and russia are fairly arbitrary areas of land and russians/americans/germans/syrians are fairly arbitrary groups of individuals rarely united by even language.
There is certainly value to an individual living and living with their friends on a shared land, developing a culture that is unique to them bet that particular cuisine, fashion or way of speaking, but no more than this surely? In a sense i'm for highly atomised nationalism, the independence and sovereignty of individuals. When things get as broad as communities of something as silly as germans or syrians i can't help but think that it is an invented community, forcefully homogenized at best, for the interest of a state and corporate profits as it always seems to have been. Peace and land for me and mine, all and all. That is a communism.

Furthermore, think of something like america. We are talking about how that guy doesn't like capitalism apparently, when America's national identity is so intertwined with its history as the oldest capitalist republic in the world. There is this notion of pride in being American or whatever, but again it goes back to Hbomb's basic criticism. There is no pride in being American. It's a terrible identity. What is the lifestyle of an American, the concrete conditions of being American? It's loathsome by most accounts for a fascist, I'd think. Whether it is "civic nationalism" or racial nationalism, what most of these people propose is really the entire reconstruction of the American identity to something more romantic, more heroic, a fictional construction of the American identity that nobody actually lives.

Though I think your Russian example perfectly illustrates, since their connections to the tsar and the "traditional russia" are almost all kitsch, a museum, artifacts of something obviously not lived and dead. Any attempt at recreation would be a modern pastiche.

It's easy enough to maintain it from outside forces, especially if your country isn't working in the name of profit.

You're not seeing the bigger picture - if Porky can exploit emotional attachment to National Identity to maintain Capitalism, then Holla Forums and the like can exploit emotional attachment to National Identity to oppose Capitalism, because Capitalism objectively hurts your countrymen.

I don't want to hate the Jews but it's hard not to.

Guys please
We already have , be kind enough to move over there, this thread will be anchored either way.

Prole: I need to eat
Bourgeois: work for me or starve
Prole: how?
Bourgeois: dig up valuable gems on land I "own"
Prole: how do you own land?
Bourgeois: shut and get digging or starve

Imagine Syria is Palestine in 1917, before Israel, or, in this case, massive american inmigration, (Which would create an american mayority)

kek, pretty much this

Worker: I need money to buy food, therefore I will work and get money
Mine owner: Hello, I heard you need money for foodz, here's an offer, work for me
Worker: What do I need to do?
Mine owner: Get valuable gems form this mine I have
Worker: How do you get land?
Mine owner: Me or someone in my family buought it from someone who sold it to him, now, do you accept my offer?

...

...

...

rekt

Oh no, now I see the light

when the light tells you to jump off a bridge, do it

I will, thanks anarchism™!

ur welcome, just trying to make the world a better place

The other thread is for Holla Forums rehab, this thread is for Holla Forumstural exchange. I feel like that's different enough to allow two at once, right?

...

Seriously, read the seventh part of Capital vol. 1, the part where Marx describes the history of primitive accumulation. Or don't. Better yet, read the whole thing because it's kind of important to actually know what Marx wrote, even if you don't necessarily agree with all of his points.

Of course you have to understand that land ownership is a spook. You can't be that dense to think that a deed to the land is an inalienable right. Ultimately a claim to a piece of land is backed by nothing but force, whether it's the state's force that upholds your title or your own private force that is only relevant if it isn't overpowered by someone else's private force. The long-ass history of warfare alone should be enough to demonstrate that.

Land ownership isn't necessarily a bad thing if there's no classes and no market economy.

...

...

Hi Varg

t. has never opened a history book

At least tell me in what year is implied

This situation has broadly been true for a majority of working people since the establishment of private property till about 200-150 years ago when the international workers movement begun fighting back against the interests of capital and the prospect of violent revolution seemed so imminent that the bourgeois state made concessions in the form of workers rights which were won by blood and struggle.
In america company towns persisted even longer and in many parts of the world this is still a reality for many working people. Fundamentally the worlds wealth of resources, land, infrastructure and productive capital is owned in its entirety by a tiny capitalist class. All this is denied to the worker who must make work and give up the fruits of their work to these capitalists so that they may survive.

This situation has broadly been true for a majority of working people since the establishment of private property till about 200-150 years ago when the international workers movement begun fighting back against the interests of capital and the prospect of violent revolution seemed so imminent that the bourgeois state made concessions in the form of workers rights which were won by blood and struggle.
In america company towns persisted even longer and in many parts of the world this is still a reality for many working people. Fundamentally the worlds wealth of resources, land, infrastructure and productive capital is owned in its entirety by a tiny capitalist class. All this is denied to the worker who must make work and give up the fruits of their work to these capitalists so that they may survive.

This situation has broadly been true for a majority of working people since the establishment of private property till about 200-150 years ago when the international workers movement begun fighting back against the interests of capital and the prospect of violent revolution seemed so imminent that the bourgeois state made concessions in the form of workers rights which were won by blood and struggle.
In america company towns persisted even longer and in many parts of the world this is still a reality for many working people. Fundamentally the worlds wealth of resources, land, infrastructure and productive capital is owned in its entirety by a tiny capitalist class. All this is denied to the worker who must make work and give up the fruits of their work to these capitalists so that they may survive.

This situation has broadly been true for a majority of working people since the establishment of private property till about 200-150 years ago when the international workers movement begun fighting back against the interests of capital and the prospect of violent revolution seemed so imminent that the bourgeois state made concessions in the form of workers rights which were won by blood and struggle.
In america company towns persisted even longer and in many parts of the world this is still a reality for many working people. Fundamentally the worlds wealth of resources, land, infrastructure and productive capital is owned in its entirety by a tiny capitalist class. All this is denied to the worker who must make work and give up the fruits of their work to these capitalists so that they may survive.

This situation has broadly been true for a majority of working people since the establishment of private property till about 200-150 years ago when the international workers movement begun fighting back against the interests of capital and the prospect of violent revolution seemed so imminent that the bourgeois state made concessions in the form of workers rights which were won by blood and struggle.
In america company towns persisted even longer and in many parts of the world this is still a reality for many working people. Fundamentally the worlds wealth of resources, land, infrastructure and productive capital is owned in its entirety by a tiny capitalist class. All this is denied to the worker who must make work and give up the fruits of their work to these capitalists so that they may survive.

Yeah, that is different enough for me
unanchred

Calling them Porky doesn't make it any less anti-Semitic.

dont be mean, stop spergin out and try to be diplomatic

Not him but OP's image implied Holla Forums was/is anti-capitalist which is simply not the case since even hinting approval for something like Asserism on there gets you nothing but accusations of being a marxist and more than likely a ban. I don't see that as "sperging out", just righting a wrong.

Former Holla Forumsack here: Kick out all those MAGA ziocons.
Mainstream republitards have completely ruined Holla Forums.

Most chesscucks actively support capitalism.

ur really shitting up the flag. It's supposed to be for ironic shitposting, not genuine.

fair enough, but i still think we should be optimistic and explain instead of posting memes and infographs.

Sure, now that the matter is out of the way, i don't see why we should continually harp on it. Although, i can't guarantee more memes won't be posted on other matters of course.

sage for off topic

I would never side with nazis they had A Rothschild in their hands but let him go on a bribe. Hardly smashing the banking class is it

Every time.

nazis are porkies

Fascism is really just a combination of National syndicalism (which is 'okay') and futurism (a woman hateric death cult). Other movements within fascism such as the Legionaries (a combination of communalism, blood cultism, christianity, and violent anti-semitism) and the corporatists (which became the most dominant and were absolute shit). Fuck nazis

The only nat soc id ever ally myself with is a Asserist

they can't fucking win

good

...

pssst
because they are

how is futurism a sexist death cult?

may they take solace & comfort in these words of Solomon:
And these from Tracy Moore, Jezebel advice columnist ("A Handy Guide for When Everyone Hates You"):

You seem like a nice guy , just a little missguided and spooked
Embrace the left comrade , become one of us and fight the good fight

aaaaayyy lmao

the way I see it is, and I'm sure you're dying to know, Holla Forums autoerotically asphyxiates over being the anti-PC rationalist "old left" (never mind where PC came from), but you're NOT allowed to have the same opinions about certain topics as Marx, Stirner, Bakunin, Proudhon or Stalin, or much of the horrifically backwards actual proletariat now, because the past century of indoctrination in liberal mores has clearly shown us the moral error of our ways, regardless of it being capitalist ideology. because some elite western "leftists" working for the state agreed with it, go figure.

whereas Holla Forums's master theoreticians like to gag on their own scrota as the woke ex-left aufheben that's anti-capitalist (islamic-style welfare capitalism at most) and the truly edgy vanguard due to universal condemnation of their favorite political party as the embodiment of evil, yet you're expelled for just going too far with the anti-capitalist views, shared by members of that same party, who were too edgy even for daddy. they're also statists who consider themselves reactionaries, but reacting to capitalism altogether, an arguably ur-kosher invention belonging to a negligible fraction of a percent of all human history, is just not okay, and meanwhile their movement is infested with overt israeli subversion.

it does tho
anti-semitism is the anti-capitalism of the ignorant