Why does most of Holla Forums support capitalism as a concept?

I knew it, Holla Forums is spamming this.

I knew this when I saw the same post yesterday.

Fail.

Fair enough.

Private ownership over the means of production.

I thought this was a board that encouraged free debate?
Not to mention, you're basically just spouting off buzzwords. If 70% of the people here believed that kikes were white would you want someone to challenge that narrative? Or would you call it "divide and conquer"?

Except you're comparing an economic ideology to an inanimate object, that's essentially a false equivalence. Capitalism as a concept has no safeguards in place to prevent the formation of monopolies through mergers and acquisitions. Eventually these companies will want to appeal to more demographically diverse markets (that's why we have faggy soup commercials) and ship jobs overseas to decrease overhead costs.
Not to mention, they'll lobby the government for open borders in order to get cheap unskilled labor if they haven't yet moved all of their operations overseas.

Good Goys.

No, who gave you that idea?

There is no such thing as capitalism though, the word has far to many meanings and far too much uses and a slur to be usefull in a discussion.

Talk about Classical-Liberalism or Libertarianism.

Really, and what in my posts indicates I do that?

Capitalism as an ideology and as a set of rules that govern economy in some aspects are different concepts. One is just as retarded as communism, universal and materialist at the end. The other one is just a local set of rules.

Give me back my protectionism and serfdom and we'll implement some capitalist systems for the world economy not to disappear completely.

Enjoy being a serf, retard.

I would, very much.

–vs–

Next you're going to say "You can't be a nazi because of muh 6 million"

If that's the case it tells me that you don't have an ideological leg to stand on if you don't want anything other than a hugbox.
Capitalism =/= markets.
Still capitalism, it's just a special snowflake variant of capitalism.

It implies you support capitalism as a concept. If you don't apologize.

You have an extremely romanticized view of serfdom. The reality is that if you're a serf your only reason for existence is to pay taxes to your lord and work on his land. That doesn't sound like a fulfilling life to me. Not to mention, you better hope your lord doesn't get himself into a war with the next castle over because if he does, half the food you produce is going to feed his knights while you're eating a small daily ration of bread.

Meant to write:
It implies you support capitalism as a concept. If you don't I apologize.

Wait a minute, I never stated Holla Forums is a hugbox.

This is a rebuttle to what exactly?

That the word does not have many meanings?

That almost nobody seriously uses the word for a movement?

What? Do you mean Liberalism is…?

No, it does not, I think your leftypol because you spam this same thread and you say we are all capitalists, when that word holds no meaning.

...

That's just how Russians are. They had it hardest under the serfdoms and communism. They're a people of suffering. Nothing new there.

I personally don't. National Socialist here.

Capitalism = Materialism. That is, "He who dies with the most money, wins!"

With capitalism, the only thing that matters is money and doing whatever you can to get as much of it as you can to make yourself secure and happy.

A way I like to put it is…judeo Capitalism and judeo Communism are two sides of the same shekel. It's a distraction to keep you from caring about what really matters. ie: Your people and your family, yourself and your relationship with whatever deity you wish to believe in.

Another new definition of capitalism!

Go fuck yourself.

I see, and we should take Evola's and not other peoples definition as the right one, because….

>>>Holla Forums

I wouldn't say new. I don't claim I came up with that description.

Is it accurate? Yes.
Is it new? No.

You see, I care about my people before I care about my money and material possession.
I want the economic system to serve the people.
I don't want the people serving the economic system in the hopes that they strike the motherload.

Really, why is that?

Because I don't support a racemixer like Evola?

Was National Capitalism ever a thing, or could it be?

Why or why not?

To bad it's one of dozens of definition of capitalism.

...

So what?
That doesn't mean the definition is inaccurate or a lie.

You didn't have to. You literally said that this board isn't about free debate.
It sounded as if you were using the old argument that "capitalism has never been tried because we don't have a free market".
Okay, I'll bite, what's your definition of capitalism.

Both classical liberalism and modern neoliberalism, yes.

Just because some other people here have criticized capitalism that doesn't mean it's all the same guy. Maybe the board is just waking up to the fact that it's an inherently Jewish system.

I agree.

Really? Why?

I think the original idea was that companies would stick to a single thing, like making farm equipment, and we'd get a nice range of tradeoffs between quality and price via competition. If one of the companies managed to get a monopoly, the government would step in and break that company into 2 or more competitors. Consumers would wind up with the most options, the best prices and constant innovation.

It's easy to point at corruption as what fucked everything up, but even with perfect people we'd have high barriers to entry in things like car manufacturing and companies like Microsoft and Amazon constantly diversifying.

If we prevented things like mergers and acquisitions, and only allowed a given company to operate in one economic sector, I think we could salvage it.

Everything is too entangled today, we need companies to want to destroy each other in the marketplace instead of slowly merging together via acquisitions.

The media should not be controlled by a handful of kikes.

No, it means you should words that more clearer describe what you mean.

He died without children.

Literally two different things, but alright, in your mind they are the same.

I guess, to you a dank prison is the same thing as a mansion, because technically speaking they are both dwellings.

There is no capitalist ideology mate, so that is impossible.

sigh, I don't have one, it's an meaningless word.

What is "almost nobody"?

Alright, then why no use the term Liberalism?

Yeah, sure, three strasserite threads in two days and it's not one person spamming.

The fact that you think we are all capitalists here, makes it very likely you are from /leftpol.

1. no serious person uses that word.
2. most people here clearly have mostly socialist ideals.

I mean, it is clear what you are.

Not the meaning of the word and you know pretty well that it isn't.

I described my beliefs on capitalism quite well.
Hell, I reduced it to a single statement in my explanation.
…Which you yourself then quoted in your attempted mockery of me.

Capitalism = Materialism. That is, "He who dies with the most money, wins!"

See? Can't get much more clearer than that.

Now if you have some way of proving my statement wrong because you might disagree with my statement, please try.
Because so far, all you've seemingly done is try to claim that I'm somehow wrong because I defined Capitalism in a way you seemingly disagree with.

One of dozens of definitions.

It means that the 'race-mixing' was inconsequential.

Was National Capitalism ever a thing, or could it be?

Why or why not?

Now we're just going in circles. I've already responded to your statement in regard to that.
As seen here:

I assume you're saying "It's one of the dozens of definitions of capitalism therefore it's wrong somehow".

Well, if my definition is wrong or inaccurate, then you have to prove it as such.
Just because you say "it's one of dozens of definitions" does not automatically make my definition wrong or inaccurate.

The comparison to fire is very apt here. If left unchecked, a fire will expand and consume all fuel in it's path. Similarly, capitalism without any stops or checks will result in exactly what you mentioned.

If your argument is that it's them no longer capitalism, I don't have the time to argue the etymological side of things.

Oh look another leftypol sperg thread.
Don't you guys get tired of getting your asses handed to you.

S is for Sage and Slide

Because it works with our human nature. Man is greedy. Capitalism moeves that greed into productive channels.

This is also my main problem with national socialism. I'm all for nationalism. But I dislike the socialist aspect of it.

Yeah, I get that our lives shouldm't revolt around capitalism. Just look at our world today. A consumer society, which most people don't feel they're part of anything bigger. Yet capitalism is the best promoter of innovation. Making the best products available for the best price, thus increasing the welfare of our people.

Isn't there some sort of middle way? A white nationalist country, with strong racial feeling. But also with capitalism and free trade with other nations.

I don't believe it ever was. I guess it could be a thing if capitalism was contained to one country with a self-sufficient economic system.

Thing is though, in the quest for more money, the laws against it being contained in one country would be done away with so people could make more money globally.

I'm not sure what that has to do with our current discussion.

So you're saying capitalism just springs up out of nowhere? I find that hard to believe considering that early forms of capitalism (mercantilism, hint hint) didn't really exist until the 14th century or so.
Than what exactly are you defending? If you aren't willing to define terms how am I supposed to debate you?
There are plenty of ancaps. Ron Paul kind of established that in 2012.
Because liberalism is just capitalism in it's modern form.

Believe whatever you want. I don't have any reason to visit a board full of internationalist cucks except to occasionally tell them how wrong they are about nationalism and race.
That still doesn't exactly address the substance of my argument though. You're basically deflecting.

Also, what role does the authoritarian state play in this country? We'll have economic freedom. So we don't want an all powerful state to implement some planned economy.

Except capitalism doesn't necessarily equate to markets. You can have an economy based on monopolies and it's still capitalism.

I'm waiting.

Capitalism in it's current form in America over the last 100 years with military, medical, agricultural industrial complexes is essentially socialism.

Our industries became so large it became impossible for most individuals to ply a trade or their own land.

The idea of capitalism is now very much separated from the individual and independent ideas that are crucial to it.

With 100+ years of litigation in favors of the largest players it's just become socialism that was conveniently different from the Soviets.

Is that because when you think of "Socialism" you're thinking of Communism?

The Socialism in National Socialism is much different than the Socialism in Socialism.

That's how the Jew, multiculturalism, and diversity worms its way into your heart.

As a concept? You must be one of those NEET faggots.

How does a concept give anything to anyone? Magic fairy dust? Politicians gave you globalism.

Yeah, you don't get out of your bedroom. Have a looksee into immigrating to the US if you think it's unregulated. Look into the lottory that's held every year for a green card. Fucking Irish.

ILLEGAL immigration on the otherhand, is unregulated by the fucking nature of it.

Again, politicians and banking has always been global. It's how we got to find this rock and genocide spics and Tonto. Good fucking times.

Oooooh 'generating profits'. Yes, from which taxes are paid and thus your fucking welfare is paid out you hippy douche. Put down your fucking bong.

For the same reason I don't shoot heroin into my cock. Go upstairs and ask your mom if you're confused.

I get that. But they still had all kinds of social programs. The welfare state and progressive income tax for example.

We can trade with other nations, but we don't need to let their people into our nations right? My country for example (The Netherlands), heavily relies on trade.

The same effect can be achieved through a market based socialism with individual businesses being replaced with worker owned cooperatives. The people would feel the need to work harder because it would mean that they are going to get a wage increase if their particular cooperative performs better within the marketplace.
If that's the case maybe you shouldn't call yourself a national socialist? I'm not even saying that to be snarky. I'm saying your political label should reflect your personal philosophy.
The same could be achieved with market socialism.
I don't think so. Capitalism as a concept promotes globalization in the name of expanding markets.

There is nothing wrong with helping your own people.

That's the difference between NS and Soc.

In NS, the state served the people and the people served each other.

In Soc, the people served the state and that is all.

In NS there was nothing wrong with making money as long as doing so did not come at the expense of the people. Which is the case with Socialism and Capitalism.

And when you do that, you become reliant on them for your survival.

You'd be letting their products in. At the expense of your own people. For every TV you import from Japan that's fewer people making TV's in your own country.
I get that the Netherlands might not have the capacity to be self reliant because of its size, but at least import goods from other White countries and export your surplus goods to other White countries.

I don't know much about market based socialism, so I can't really discuss this.

I don't call myself a national socialist. I'm not even sure what I am. What I want is a white free country. No authoritarian state trying to control the economy. Just a homogenous state with as much freedom as possible for the people living in it.

Capitalism has been a Commie meme for 100yrs now. All it means is "you're being selfish!" It's lost all meaning outside of economics class which also argues for International Socialism (Globalist economics)

Real NatSoc is a military strategy to save a country and race. It should only last for 100yrs or so, once things are way in favor the Aryan peoples and Eugenics has guided us out of this fucking nightmare. It's not to be glorified beyond that because concentrated power always corrupts once the enemy has died.

now STFU

Nope, I work 40 hours per week in a factory.
Politicians who's campaigns are financed using corporate money.
You can put in all of the regulations you want but if you don't have any adequate border protection than it's meaningless. We don't have border protection because billionaires like George Soros lobby the government to keep those policies from being enacted.
Yes, it's the evil Irish, Good Goy.
And we wouldn't have illegal immigrants if we didn't have billionaires lobbying to keep the border from being secured.
Just like it's always been related to capital. They literally trade in capital. You're idiotic if you can't see this.
Sorry, I don't smoke pot, nor take welfare. Even if I did though, it wouldn't change the validity of my arguments.
Good Goy, make sure those filthy Nazis keep their hands off my shekels.

It's basically private businesses being replaced with businesses that are owned by the employees themselves. It would be like if you removed the boss and gave everyone an equal voice in deciding how the company is run and an equal share of the profits. These businesses would compete with one another in the market.

You might be something akin to a "national capitalist" although, personally, I find that to be a contradiction considering capitalism has a tendency to dissolve national boundaries.

No, seriously, kill yourself.

National Socialism =/= International Socialism

So you're literally saying that National Socialism is a flawed ideology?
Sounds pretty Jewish to me.

You too Schlomo.

Because I'm a steamo-locomotivist.

I actually found this kind of funny, well played.

I'm almost certain that it doesn't.

I think the general consensus in Holla Forums is, nationalist aspects aside, that personal freedom is great and therefore enterprise is too. However, working to the harm of the nation's people is not, such as outsourcing, usury, debt slavery, erasing competition (and therefore innovation) and so on.

On the other side Holla Forums believes that a good government works to the benefit of its people, starting from safeguarding them from international elements (kikery) and providing some level of welfare e.g. good opportunities and some benefit, yet only to an extent, such as looking after those crippled from war or their workplace. Marxist leanings, gibsmedats, and enabling shameless spongers through the welfare state to increase national debt and the tax burden are not okay in the Holla Forumsack mind. Nobody here likes niggers moving in to claim freebies, and they don't like people who make themselves too fat to work to get those freebies.

I think the average Holla Forumsack is a centrist with authoritarian sympathies for the big picture (anti-kike measures) with libertarian sympathies for the little picture, i.e. personal freedom.
Holla Forumsacks do lean in varying directions and present different solutions to different problems, but they still have a lot in common. Yet, few are fully capitalist or socialist.

10/10 post

Because attempting some kind of thwarting of capitalism like the leftists have attempted and failed miserably to do for ages is the wrong move.

Its better to organize ourselves so that capitalism hurts us the least. We should be creating a White Capitalism in the image of of Trump and Musk.

This is perfectly fine and, along with patriarchy, is one of the foundations of civilization. Get rid of either and your civilization will be put on the path to collapse.

because they figure its the only way to hide their trust fund from "the niggers"

National Socialism also involves massive overspending and state debts. Hitler's government spent five billion more marks than they brought in through taxation; Germany would have collapsed if it hadn't been able to annex neighboring countries to prop up its economy.

No.

Let's make things simple here and define capitalism as the 'pursuit of capital (i.e. money or what constitutes for it) before all else'.

Now let's look at the purpose of government, or perhaps even 'systems of living'. What is it that a society wants to achieve? I think we can pretty much all agree on: 'the highest quality of life possible to attain'. This will no doubt have a few 'qualifiers' based on the individual, some might be okay with others being disadvantaged for their benefit, others may not, and still others might have other additions to my statement; but in general everyone wants the highest possible quality of life.

The link between having the most money and being able to have the highest quality of life is an easy one to establish. With more capital comes more possibilities, with more possibilities a greater chance to achieve the highest quality of life.

Thus most people support capitalism because with money they can improve the quality of their existence. It's a very simple concept to understand.

It does of course fail on occasion. In general making the most wealth possible will increase quality of life to the highest extent; however there are instances where acquiring more capital can come at the expense of long-term health. Here is where Holla Forums tends to have a problem with capitalism, and rightly so. Mass-immigration is a short-term gold mine (especially if you actually take 'good' immigrants), long-term it will cause many problems. Cutting down your forests can also supply a massive amount of revenue; but long term will leave your land barren and deprive your people of the innumerable health benefits that nature can provide.

That's all there is to it. In a society that seeks to increase 'national health' at the expense of all other things, it will appear to be entirely capitalist about 90% of the time. Capitalism is generally a very good idea, you just need a few checks to make sure that you aren't accidentally selling yourself into slavery for a quick profit.

Lurk more, nigger. Besides, the Capitalism jerk-off is because of the right-left dichotomy, so people are just clinging to whats the direct opposite of Communism (even though we should take positives from both, like with Fascism).

Because the far left brands itself as "anti-capitalist", which it is not (controlled opposition, useful idiots).
No, really, that's literally the only reason in 90% of the cases.

Also, this quote is not from Alain de Benoist but from Francis Cousin (another french thinker/philosopher). I'm not saying Alain de Benoist never said something that resembles this though.

The jews are like the spinal column of the Capital, they have no country, but only an ideology of self-centered profit which enables them to pursue and advance the state of exploitation without feeling guilty about it. The nature of their community and the culture surrounding it (just read the Old Testament) makes them essentially capitalistic. Antisemitism (or, as we should rather call it, antijudaism) arises when the middle-class is falling into the lower class; in order to save itself it resorts to antijudaism by blaming a very identifiable group of elite which holds very large amount of capital vis-a-vis its size in the population. The state of judaism is basically the cursor of how exploited you're being, including among jews themselves (we see more and more jews emancipating themselves from judaism).

Dude, Evola was a total NEET weeb faggot.

Gottfried Feder - The German State On A National And Socialist Foundation
archive.org/details/GottfriedFederTheGermanStateOnANationalAndSocialistFoundation

The National Socialism most stormfags here want is not Socialism. George Lincoln Rockwell and David Duke are not Socialists. You clearly don't care about welfare programs for whites like the original Natsocs did since you didn't even bother to mention them.

Capitalism is defined as the right to own and trade capital.

Holla Forums please. Don't be like Holla Forums who have absolutely no clue about economics (especially microeconomics, which builds the framework for examining markets and welfare theory).

Capitalism, at its most basic level, allows for efficient allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses via the mechanisms of supply/demand, prices and money as an intermediate for trading things of value (solving the problem of a double coincidence of wants). Anything beyond this point, multinational corporations, collusion with the state, immigration to push down wages, is a consequence of government policy. If you want to criticize the problems, you should probably look to where the problem actually comes from.

Because Capitalism is 100% employment and 0% poverty. This is what the American Colonies had before the (((British Bankers))) forced them to rent their money from them, and this is the real reason why the Revolutionary War started, and why the Constitution reserves Congress and Congress alone the right to print, value, and circulate money, and not a private corporate entity.

Capitalism works. Socialism does not. The Socialists who form "realistic Socialist policies" are just reinventing usury-free Capitalism without realizing it. Capitalism is maligned because it is wrongfully blamed for the damage caused by a six hundred year old effort by private bankers to gain control of all finance and wealth around the world.

Capitalism is the meritocratic salvation of the Republic. Central private banking is a five hundred year old mistake that must be expunged from the face of the earth. Usury must be classified a human rights violation and an international crime against humanity, and those who attempt to practice it punished accordingly. Nothing less will see anything but a temporary lull in this eternal war over bloodstained scrip.

Pic related, it's the reading material you should address yourself to. Benjamin Franklin is a far better source of economic wisdom than a bunch of crypto-jews and closet anarchists. In a single pamphlet, not only does he completely crush the notion that a gold and silver backed currency is good, but he goes on to create a better version of Hitler and Lincoln's proposed currency: money, not backed by labor or a fixed decided worth, but rather backed by nothing less than the land of the nation itself.

Not only does such a system naturally resist manipulation and bubble-burst cycles, but any discrepancies that are created will naturally correct themselves as people used inflations or deflations to play off debts or buy up land and commodities to sell at a profit.

Fucking lolbergs and Socialists think they have all the goddamn answers, but they don't even understand the basics. Kikes and fools spent three hundred years writing books and forming political movements to try and supplant and obfuscate money, and Benjamin Franklin only needed three pages of truth to absolutely crush them all.

Even Hitler grew to understand this as time went on. He wanted to remove the "Socialism" from "National Socialism," but the war got in the way. NS was nothing more than a transitory stage, and it was already beginning to blossom into the truth before it was crushed.

Gold and silver are just another commodity that can be manipulated and controlled like oil. Tying currency to it solves nothing. Likewise, labor can be depreciated in value by immigration, and even with zero immigration, will eventually be rendered obsolete by technological advances in manufacturing and industry, eroding the strength of the economy that is tied to it. And a fixed arbitrary number that has no backing in anything is easily manipulated by altering the context surrounding it, and offers no protection whatsoever to deliberate inflations or deflations in currency.

The one thing that cannot be stolen or shipped away to other nations is the land itself. A nation is blood, soil, and the shared culture of the people. Only a capitalistic system of nationalized banking where the value of money is tied to the land of the nation itself can suit the needs of a Nationalistic society.

Again, there are better and clearer words to describe what you belief.

Man is a social animal, and he is a writer about the subject, nothing a person does is inconsequential, and certainly not when a writer does it.

Yes, they are two different things.

Of course you don't, let me explain.

We don't have freedom of speech, therefor it's a hugbox.

Jack doesn't life in a mansion, therefor he lives in a prison.

Same bad logic.

I don't think your getting it. The concept, isn't real.

sigh, I don't have to take every word being used seriously. Some words simply don't mean anything.

No there are not. They are a tiny tiny minority of whatever place your add.

Alright, uhm, so we have to include a concept of capitalism that is medieval even though the middle ages are over?

Oh, right, we are internationalists, makes perfect sense.

I mean, nobody here would agree with you, but it's true, because you think it's true.

The nazis employed capitalism as their economic system.

Eat shit commies.

nice post user, never considered land as the basis for currency,
10/10 will read based Benji

Does that mean that under a system like that, a natural disaster directly devalues your currency?

I read the pamphlet and it makes a lot of sense: currency with a low interest rate does indeed add to the ability of individuals to conduct business that is beneficial to the larger community, but I don't see how to 'back' it with presumably privately owned land.

i would imagine it would have to be a pretty fuckin huge disaster to fuck up the currency of an entire nation. at that point currency would not be on the top of the list.

Maybe a little country like costa rica or netherlands or some shit would get fucked, but when you have a giant country like the US you could take the hit.

That's great and all, unless the entire climate fucks up, then it doesn't matter how much land mass you have.

again, if entire climate fucks up why are we worrying about currency?

we'll all be starving and shanking niggers to protect our potatoe patch and cabin

Marxism and capitalism are both materialistic trash that will always lead to the destruction of society.

Traditionalist ethno-nationalistic feudal socialism is the one path proven to create and maintain civilizations. If you aren't basing your ideals on the great city-states of antiquity and the proto-Indo-European concepts which led to their prominence, you're just another fuckgoi.

Because there is nothing wrong with the concept until you fail using it. You won't magically win everything if you cange capitalism for natsoc without changing community - what you can do without changing to natsoc.

Capitalism does not exist "as a concept" because it has a ridiculous number of conflicting definitions. Without an actual definition to argue over, this thread will be 30% people defining it as whatever suits them and 70% people arguing about an empty buzzword.

If there was a natural disaster severe enough to physically remove tracts of land from the map, then we have more pressing concerns to worry about than temporary financial instability.

Currency would be valued by using American soil and property as collateral against it. We have actually already arranged for something like this to a degree. One of the reasons America is able to take on so much debt is because the Federal government uses wildlife sanctuaries and other preserves as a form of collateral when it takes loans from places like China.

In theory, if China called in the debt, our government would pay it by giving them American land and the sovereign rights to mine it or extract any resources they pleased from it.

This is also illegal and unconstitutional, by the way. Strictly speaking, all land not explicitly owned by private hands is public property. The government doesn't actually have the legal authority to disbar you from any location that is not privately owned or land set aside for military use. This is one of those "it's legal if no one calls us out on it" things.

My proposal, in line with Franklin's musings about how a money scrip must be issued and controlled, is to firstly dissolve the Federal Reserve, to secondly Nationalize all banking in America and run those banks with 100% transparency to the public, and to thirdly re-empower Congress with the ability to issue currency, with the value and quantity of the currency and the amount put into circulation corresponding to the total amount and value of land and land assets available. This would likely entail a branch in each state, which keeps track of land and real estate in their state, so as to allow more accurate issuing of the correct value and quantity of currency in a given area. If necessary, each state would have their own sub-currency, but I don't believe we need to take it that far.

In addition, and as part of the 100% transparency clause, all of the books and ledgers would be open, all meetings and discussions recorded and made part of the public record, and the Secretary of the Treasury would oversee the system and is thusly cycled out every new Presidency, thereby preventing a Shadow Government from forming in regards to the banks.

This should also be how the CIA and FBI are dealt with, with the associated directors being members of the Presidential cabinet and thus subject to elections instead of existing entirely outside of them, but that's security related, not economics related, so it isn't really relevant.

It lifted my family from poor farmers to middle class.

That's not how national debt works
you can't "call in" since it's held in bonds for the most part

They have set payment times

No it's the fucking naziboos that have killed this board.

Don't think for a minute you're going to escape the Day of the Rope, faggot

Just so we're clear about this

Globalized elites using capitalism as a tool =/= capitalism.

Socialism deprives the worker of his rights because he is divorced from the product of his labor. If the worker cannot purchase the means of production, he is not given total control over his labor. It is often said how little social mobility there is under Capitalism, but how much is there in Socialism? There is none, inherently so. The worker can never work out of his destitution, he must stay at the bottom of the ladder forever. Through an Interventionist Protectionist authoritarian Capitalism, we can ensure the prosperity of early Capitalism along with the workers' rights of late Capitalism.

Wow, it looks like there are a lot of niggers ITT that don't know what National Socialism/Fascism is.

Wow, it looks like there are a lot of lumpin proletariat ITT that don't know what true Communism is.

That's true. But that doesn't change the fact that the Federal Government is using public property that belongs to everyone to wipe their own asses and hide their bad fiscal policy decisions.

Keynesian economics have failed. The backbone of a nation's power and success lies in it's ability to produce, not in it's ability to consume. America has given away it's production capacity to the second and third world, and entrusted the value and strength of it's currency to foreign investors and international bankers. Thanks to the Petrodollar, the Arabs have more say over the strength of the dollar than the American people do, and it is the Chinese and the Mexicans that feed and clothe Americans, not the American people themselves. All Americans do is labor endlessly to pay debts that can never be resolved so that they can live in homes that they will never fully own. Many have termed this system "modern day serfdom," and they are absolutely correct in doing so.

This is absolutely unacceptable. We have been gutted by Globalists and closet Trotskyists, and the raw economic strength of the American people is being used to bankroll the United Nations, just as the strength of German labor is being used to bankroll the EU.

Without the American purse, Globalism dies. Without German handouts, the EU will fracture and dissolve almost overnight.

False equivalency.

>>>Holla Forums

No I'll kill YOU!!!

This is textbook sophistry.

How was it sophistry? Stop throwing around that word, because I've seen you do it in multiple threads.

PFFFF
You can have private property and the fruits of your labor under a NatSoc society. Shit thread because of a shit OP calling everyone good goy.

A system being Jewish is in no way a prerequisite for Jews to be able to take advantage of it.

That was the first time I've ever typed it out in my life.

No, they aren't.
This is a false equivalence. If you're stating that your board doesn't allow for freedom of speech that implies that only certain types of speech is acceptable. That will inevitably result in a circle-jerk i.e. a hugbox.
You're making a claim without providing any evidence for your claim. You're basically just saying "X isn't real so we shouldn't worry about it". Prove to me that "capitalism isn't real", even though it is.

If you're not willing to provide definitions than there's no point in debating with you.

They're still a significant enough political force. They just haven't been tapped into as a voting bloc since 2012.

Because you said capitalism doesn't exist. So it's important to point out the history of capitalism to prove otherwise.

I was calling Holla Forums internationalists. It seems like you would have gotten that to be honest…

But capitalism was never just a tool. It was always a moralistic ideology.

That's a fundamentally retarded definition of "Capitalism". Capitalism is actually a school of thought that started in the first half of the 19th century and started picking up steam as a real movement in the 1840s.

"Private ownership over the means of production" is saying the same thing as the existence of property at all. Clearly property existed prior to the 1840s, as did conception of rights to property, as did the existence of markets for trading property. Markets exist among lower order primates and other members of the animal kingdom and do not require an ideology for their existence among we higher order primates. Capitalism is something much more specific which had explicit moral goals, and is essentially proto-Communism.

Marxism is a critique of Capitalism that espouses the same approximate end goals of eliminating nations, religions, peoples into a single globalized mass of amoral materialists for the purpose of creating peace on Earth, et cetera, et cetera. Marxism doesn't exist without Capitalism as a precursor putting forward the secular, moral argument for these ends. Capitalism is strongly deontological though, while Marxism is not. The only real distinction between Capitalists and Marxists that should concern non-Marxist non-Capitalists is that they disagree on whether or not the ends justify the means.

Capitalism is essentially just Voluntary Communism, with a moral system that judges people individually based on their adherence to a set of rules (these rules essentially being the applied amoralism of a shopkeeper who can't afford to take strong moral stances without being at a competitive disadvantage versus other amoral materialists). Doctrinaire post-Lenin Marxism eschews these "rules" (as well as many other actual traditional virtues that Capitalists also view as a bulwark against their globalist vision) as being inherently exploitative, and that Capitalism is inherently exploitable (as presumably all deontological systems would be under a Marxist worldview) and whatever method or tactic is morally permissible in securing the promised utopian future. I'd say given the hindsight of history, it seems clear that the Capitalists are far more effective at spreading this far left lunacy.

They really aren't. The rules that govern the economy in some aspects are based on their proposed outcomes, and the desirability of those outcomes are rooted in ideological capitalist's moral reasoning.

Mercantilism might have had some wrongheaded ideas because people went with accepted wisdom instead of actually sitting down and doing the logic and math but ultimately it was a Nationalistic economic policy. Capitalists came along and failed to make their moral argument as the far left always does, so what they were forced to do was come up with reasons to support their policies that were based on morally neutral material gain. What we wound up with that is called the blessings of "Capitalism" was a Mercantile (Nationalist) ethic tempered by influences from critics that were forced into a position to offer non-ideological critiques. Full implementation of Capitalism will always lead to an economic leveling though, erosion of nationalism, et cetera, because that is the design goal of the system.

The important point is that while Capitalists were capable of offering rational critiques because they were forced to, they only offer those critiques that further their moralistic end goals. Should their reason lead them to a conclusion that is materially beneficial to their ostensible audiences in industry, parliament et al that is contrary to their utopian end goals then that critique is simply not offered. No other movements focused on the reform of Mercantilism existed, so the only input comes from an ideologically motivated far left. This isn't science. There is no disinterested party reforming the system, and the entire process is dominated by Capitalist 1st principles which are wrongheaded.

Except it clearly is. Nobody uses the word for a movement because the first principles of capitalism are so dominant that they are unknowingly axiomatic to most people. People accept the first principles of Capitalism more strongly than religious fanatics accept the moral commandments of God, because the latter actually have a conception of the source of morality. The former do not, and as such are not even capable of doubting.

Obviously Free Trade and trade are not the same thing or there wouldn't be a need to call it Free Trade instead of just trade.

Really no one is categorically against having trading partners. Opposing Capitalism does not suddenly mandating total autarky. Free Trade was the first foray of Capitalists into politics in removing tariffs. Tariffs are just one kind of restriction to trade. Free Trade does in fact dictate the free movement of labor forces, owners, merchants, et cetera without respect to borders. Not necessarily a right to migration of peoples, but close enough to invalidate any notion of sovereignty of either states or peoples.

If foreigners can't even buy land in your market with which they may do with as they please then you've really failed the simplest test of Free Trade.

If power always corrupts than the concept of "corruption" is flawed. This specious truism is akin to using "What goes up, must come down" as a moral condemnation of gravity.

If power always corrupts then that is the nature of power and what you are condemning is power itself.

Let's not, because that would be innacurate. If you added the caveat that the pursuit of capital before all else is a moral good and any morality that impedes this is itself immoral, and you defined 'before all else' to mean without restriction requiring the obsolescence of restrictive covenants like states or even simple ingroup/outgroup recognition that would be accurate.

The proximate result of capitalist policies is actually an economic leveling, so it provides a higher quality of existence for people in poor countries at the expense of people in prosperous ones as capital holders seek investment abroad at a better price, and economic immigrants flood into higher wage markets lowering the QoL. Both of these are features, not bugs of Capitalism. This is what Capitalism was designed to do. Fulfilling its' design parameters is not an occasional failing. It occasionally fails when non-capitalists deny the full implementation of capitalist schemes and some synthesis of systems makes capitalism function at a slower pace or at hyper speed.

To the extent that Capitalism fostered any prosperity for people in already prosperous nations is an example of it failing. A failure ushered in by the mere fact that Capitalism was not an ascendant philosophy for the mainstream until about the time of the Cold War, wherein the struggle was framed as one between these two globalist, utopian ideologies. Now prosperity accumulated over centuries or more has been I want to say squandered but the truth is it has been destroyed in just a few scant decades.

Without any restriction imposed by collective entities like states or peoples.

Keynes dictated that no public funds could be used to put people on the dole because you will always get more of what you subsidize and this would create a class of welfare dependent parasites. He also dictated that a nation must have closed borders if it were to engage in widescale public spending of any kind.

We clearly don't have "Keynesian" economics. We've got Marxian economists who don't want the baggage of the label so have dredged up another historical figure to steal his name and implement none of his policies.

I dont. Capitalism is a vector for degeneracy and materialism. Im a 3rd positionist.

Gregor Strasser and De Benoist.
Wew Lad.

No, that would be crony capitalism.

Capitalism isn't defined by mass immigration or globalism. Those are the tools of the kikes.

The problem with communism is that it has barely worked for anyone, save based Ghadaffi in Libya. And look what happened to him…

That's the only way it can work, with a benevolent dictator. And then it just sort of resembles a weird kind of feudalism.

"Keynesianism" is a buzzword to libertarians. None of them really even know what it is, just that it's bad and whatever.

Nevermind that America has been more guided by monetarist economics since the 80s.

They are the same thing. Capitalism inevitably becomes crony capitalism. Always.

Yeah. This is the sophists game that capitalists have played to enact their utopian vision. The pretense is that they object to Keynes because he was some kind of pinko, but the reality is he was a hyper-patriotic Britain who argued for economic reforms with the 1st principle of what was best for his nation specifically rather than the 1st principle of what is best for the greatest number of people irrespective of rather they be friend or foe, ingroup or outgroup.

Keynes is a demonic figure to them because he's on the "wrong side of history" and a threat to their aspirations of a hegemonic new world order where there won't be any people capable of even thinking like Keynes. So maybe a buzzword for the idiots, but the false association of his ideas with leftism.

So-called "right" libertarians attack Keynes' aphorism that "in the long run we'll all be dead" citing his homosexuality as a reason for presumed short-sightedness. Not having children means he's not invested in future generations. What they won't go into detail with is this is a rebuttal of libertarian conceptions of a linear history wherein we will eventually reach the End of History at which point there will no longer be any strife of any kind because liberal economics will have perfected mankind and the world. Where in the long run we'll eventually all become 'evolved' New Soviet Men and problems in the present won't matter because current misery is only a step along the path to the coming utopia, so addressing problems wherein capitalism is seeing capital flee the nation and impoverishing its' inhabitants shouldn't be addressed because such things are not long at things in the long run.

"In the long run, we'll all be dead" is an attempt to slap sense into people off daydreaming about this absolutely blinkered insanity of Heaven on Earth at some point in a future so far distant that it can't even be estimated by its' proponents.

One of the best posts on Holla Forums, worthy of its own thread

Too bad I didn't see it earlier, it could produce a great conversation, especially about the currency being backed by Nation's land.
I personally think that NatSoc and currency backed by labour and goods produced is the best answer and counterweight to global Capitalism and Cultural Marxism, but am genuinely interested and willing to listen if you could elaborate on some of the points you've made.

…is a deliberate obfuscation of his ideas.

Apparently I'm too tired to be fully coherent, but I think you get the point.

No it doesn't. Unregulated capitalism and governmental systems with no oversight result in crony capitalism. Capitalism is corrupted because those who lead it are not nationally based producers and distributors, but international elements with no ties to any one nation who flaunt a fluid nature and extralegal status to drain entire economies dry and exploit whole civilizations for profit.

You heap the sins of the international banking cabal and it's children upon the feet of Capitalism, and yet if it were truly responsible, then why did the total destruction and abolishment of Capitalism in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries merely make the influence of such international elements worse?

Capitalism is not the problem.

Yes, it does. Money grants people leverage over politics, which they use to make legislation in their favor, which gives them more power and money. Repeat over the course of a century and you have crony capitalism. There is no such thing as pure capitalism in real life, just like there is no pure communism. Capitalism in practice becomes crony capitalism. Communism in practice becomes state capitalism.

Vast majority of Holla Forums does not support or tolerate capitalism

Good point.

Prove it.

Someone really needs to edit this, 'Including' is misspelled.

roman empire, minus the whole taking over land and assuming soverignty part

It always has in all of history. And I have the theoretical basis for it, which is really very simple and not difficult to understand

So you have a body of evidence and working theory.

Roman empire was not capitalism.

Which you have failed to provide. All you have claimed is that wealth will inevitably subvert the political process. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Capitalism. In a world "without" Capitalism, however you happen to define it, this would still occur.

You would lay the very concept of bribery itself at the feet of Capitalism? That is completely and utterly absurd. I'd like to see you describe the system where bribery isn't possible.

Who are you to say "most of Holla Forums?"
Fuck off shill.
Not Capitalism, not Communism, not Globalism.
Nationalism.

How is this corruption? Capitalism is the market operating without restriction from laws, traditions, et cetera. If you put "oversight" or "regulation" to on the market rather than market forces deciding the best allocation of resources, personnel et cetera then you don't have Capitalism.

The "corruption" you are describing is the smooth functioning of Capitalism. What we are actually getting with crony Capitalism is the government giving the 'international banking cabal' a leg up because our traitorous elites want to accelerate the inevitable outcome of Capitalism via means that Capitalists originally would have deemed immoral.

Because instead of deontologically following and enforcing the rules to inevitably come to a logical endpoint of a long-standing Capitalist world order, they believed they could leap closer to the end of the project

The Soviet Union was a banker project anyway. It couldn't have remained solvent without being propped up by western banks, and the development of its' infrastructure by western industries. In point of fact it lasted only about as long as it remained chic in the West among the elite because it was their project from top to bottom. It would have been dismantled by force by its' neighbors much earlier had not almost the entire 'civilized' world not been united into a now mythologized Holy War to save Communism from destruction.

Also it's certainly arguable that it wasn't "much worse" as we can see that Communism didn't do nearly as much psychological and spiritual damage in the long run by forgoing the depredations of Capitalist engendered degeneracy. What we have in the West is much stronger because it is internal to the minds of the people. Communism's source of morality was largely external and imposed from the top down. Once the pressure was released things started the slow return to some semblance of normalcy and decency. Our western poz is largely voluntary and the extent to which it is imposed is often a factor of large segments of our society demanding it be so. Our plight is much worse and the source much more insidious than some cretinous politburo giving dictats to an apathetic, oppressed people.

It's not really bribery. According to Capitalism it's immoral for the government to impede markets, so using peaceful methods to control governments towards more moral actions is an obvious good. The traditional method would be insurrection, war, et cetera and Capitalism is an "anti-war" ideology and eschews violence in general (and sees all martial virtues, honor, bravery as immoral). Someone who refuses bribes is probably an immoral person as they refuse to accept monetary gain as the moral proxy and replacement for violent conflict. In refusing to preference their personal material gain over some other principle like working on the behalf of their people, ensuring their territorial integrity, and the sovereignty of the state they are essentially inviting violent conflict.

That's because Capitalism is just voluntary/pacifist Communism.

Didn't mean to sage

Jews subvert movements like Holla Forums to become economically far right (turbo-capitalism) so their enemies work for them.

Think of CIA backed Pinochet style "rightism" compared to the original rightism of Hitler and Mussolini

Economical left / social right is a wooden stake for the kike vampire.

Hitler and Mussolini were not original rightism.

The original rightism is monarchist, both Hitler and Mussolini were anti-monarchist.

And Pinochet did wonder for Chile.

Pinochet sucked Kisinger's dick though.

Strasserim is the greatest of all in my opinion.

Is this a meme? How do you want anarchism and nationalism working together?

They also promote monarchism because they see themselves as the new feudal lords of humanity.

Modern monarchists are kike puppets

Hitler did not promote monarchism at all.
But not Hitler, no.

Pretty much every royal bloodline is either dead or kike-infused, so you would end up being a subject of kikes who are related to them or kikes who pretend to be descended from them.

I mean monarchism is for subhumans regardless, but even if we pretend that it's not, it simply cannot hold the water today.

my body is a means of producing.
i don't like your brand of economics, comrade.

Oh please, relative of Kaiser Wilheim still lives.

Hitler feared people who have more legitimacy than him.

And whether you dislike monarchism or not, it's the original righty, not nazism or other bullshit. Nazism stems from englightenment like all post-monarchist ideas.

Its, as described in their vids, various "National Autonomous Zones". Its basically a brand of micronationalism with an alt-right flavor.

What gave them legitimacy? Divine rule?

The history of political sovereignty has theological implications, yes, even in pre-Christian times.

I see, two different words descrribe the same concept, because….

No, if I say certain types of speech are not allowed, then that could mean all kinds of other speech are allowed, not automatically making a hugbox.

sigh, I never said this. I said it was an unclear and meaningless concept, therefor not real.

sigh, it's like talking to a brick wall. Capitalism is not a clear and coherent concept, therefor it's not real.

Use real words that are clear and coherent.

No there not. I see you clearly life in a fantasy world. anarcho-capitalists are a tiny tiny minority.

There is no history of capitalism, since capitalism isn't a clear concept, unlike liberalism.

I see, I got the impression you where calling people here internationalists.

And what would give them legitimacy today?

That doesn't negate what I said, though. In fact, capitalism was created by this process, when the emerging bourgeois mercantile class (i.e. the kikes) used their money and capital power to overthrow the nobility. Capitalism was birthed by money power over politics.

Muh spot the sociology student who just got brain-fucked by his Marxist professor.

You are an idiot. Monarchy is just the degenerated form of rulership that was more akin to national socialism. NS is actually more reactionary than monarchy, since it goes all the way back to pre-monarchical Germanic forms, before hereditary rulership (which is inherently degenerate).

I fear Holla Forums plays their hands right at the lefties.

No, he sold it out to the IMF and international vultures. Pinochet was a traitor.

What the fuck?

National Socialism was a new thought spun from fascism, which was spun from communism.

Are you talking about elected elder in the germanic tribes? In that era, the germans don't even consider themselves a nation, just people living in a place.

Pinochet achieved way more than Hitler ever did.

Chine has a stable economy right now is thanks to him.

Do they still teach you cold war propaganda from the 50's? You seriously need to update your journal.

There are no new thoughts. National socialism was much closer to the primordial essence than degenerate 18th-19th century monarchy was.

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read. No people has ever considered themselves as this, and definitely not Germanic clans. And if you want to look at Germany the nation as forming from both Roman in addition to Germanic roots (which it did), even then NS is closer in essence.

Hitler never sold his country's natural resources to international vultures. Pinochet's alleged accomplishments were simply treason.

American client states tend to have stable economies. They just need to give up their sovereignty and the bigger portion of the profits from their natural resources, which will be sent abroad of course.

Do they still teach you terminology in school or is that too much for your drug addled brain to comprehend?

Pro-tip: Normal people don't use communist terms.

take your fake invisible hand spaghetti monster god and shove it up your pseudo-science ass

markets in REALITY rely on the collusion, security, and legal enforcement of the state, with out the state, no one respects contracts, no one respects the property of a dipshit who does nothing but drone on for hours about his rational "rights"

the only investment or cooperation that happens without an army ready to put a foot up anyones ass who doesnt play nice, is the market where I take your fucking shit and throw you off a cliff

Yes it does. You claimed that Capitalism is bad because money will eventually control the political power in a Capitalist society. But that will happen to any society, no matter what system you use. It is a problem with money itself, not an issue with Capitalism specifically.

At least Capitalism endeavors to spread money meritocratically across the population of people and keep it in circulation, and not concentrate it into the hands of a few where it stagnates and corrupts. It is the bankers and international elements who meddle that cause this. It is not a flaw of the system of trade itself.

You cannot name such a system. Socialists pretend that they can, but in reality it accomplishes the opposite. You concentrate all of the wealth into the power of the few who decide how to allocate it. Just as Stalin said it is not the ballots that matter, but who counts them, in a Socialist system it is not the people who receive and spend the money who matter, but the tiny group of governmental bureaucrats who have the authority to collect and reallocate that money and business. The "Money Masters" still exist in Socialism. They simply have a different job description. When the Bolshevik revolutionaries overthrew the banks in the name of "the people," did they kill their fellow Jews who had run those institutions? No, they did not. They gave them jobs in the Soviet bureaucracy managing the redistribution of wealth. The banking institution was overthrown, but the people who actually caused the problems kept right on doing what they were doing in a different building under a different job title.

Capitalism endeavors to keep the money constantly flowing. A well regulated economy has just enough scrip in circulation to cover the needs of the populace, which keeps the value of the money high, arranges the script itself to be backed against something that resists manipulation or depreciation, such as land or labor, and encourages everyone in the process to spend that money, either through purchasing, trading, investing, or speculating, which prevents the money from piling up into any one group or individual's hands. In a true capitalistic society, the poor are given the opportunity to better their station, while the wealthy are given avenue to spend their fortunes by investing in local areas and businesses, improving their social and political stock and embiggening and invigorating their home communities, which further provides for opportunities for the lower and middle class, who will in turn provide labor and support for the upper class. It is a symbiotic, cyclical relationship, and the reason things like tax breaks for donations and charity functions exist is to encourage this sort of behavior.

Institutions like the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England subvert this process, which is why they must be destroyed.

It also doesn't help that many charities and nearly all art institutions are giant money laundering rackets now, but that's a different problem that needs to be solved, and doesn't have anything to do with commerce specifically.

...

...

Post-Enlightment, the place God used to occupy in the formulation is supplemented by Rousseau's "General Will".

An unconscious deification of the masses and their fickle sentiments.

You heap the sins of the international banking cabal and it's children upon the feet of Capitalism, and yet if it were truly responsible, then why did the total destruction and abolishment of Capitalism in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries merely make the influence of such international elements worse?
Uhm Bolshevism?

Wow you really BTFO here. +1 You know you did bc all he can rebut are slogans and stutterings of the Muh Wealth of Nations Muh Free Markets horseshit.

Sorry to keep samefagging but these words have definitions and you cannot just a priori disqualify them because pinkos. Face it bro ur dum

Capitalism is only meritocratic at it's initial stage, and not even then in case of ex-socialist societies. As soon as someone amasses enough capital to influence the market, destroy the competition and stop others from emerging, it becomes anti-meritocratic.

As soon as people start inheriting massive wealth instead of creating it, it becomes anti-meritocratic. It has no equality of opportunity.

Despotic, nepotistic feudalism is the logical conclusion of capitalism however you look into it. Free markets are a jewish lie.

Cartel-banking is a natural consequence of capitalism. You could say that the "evil state" and central banking are just service providers for the big capital. Which they essentially are. And it's not about circulation of money at all, but about hoarding of money. It doesn't matter how much money you have, but how much of it you have compared to others. That gives you power over them. And that motivates the elites to make everyone else poor despite there not being any natural reasons for it.

It's not about resources, it's not even about leisure/prestige, it's about power over others.

Uh, he did, just that he lacked valuable resources in the first place.
And that's a bad thing? Don't stable economies matter more than natural resources?

Proof? Because Hitler's thoughts were based on Mussolini's fascism, which was spun from communism.
The people living in Germania were not all germanic, some were slavic and alpine. Germania was a geographical location, as called by the romans and the celts, not a nation.
The Roman Empire was a multiracial and multicultural empire.

So you are anti-feudalism as well as anti-capitalism?

No political system can make everyone equal, it will always give men power over others.

But it's not meritocratic. It does not allow the best to gain power, which is destructive for society long term.

Everyone shouldn't be equal, but there should be equal opportunity. It's against natural law that inferior rule over superior. That's why kikes love feudalism and capitalism, because it fits their perverse views.

what system would you suggest as a replacement? Would you maintain free market principles but allow government intervention to keep artificial competition?

I'm sorry to tell you, but not everyone will have equal opportunity either. Some people are born into wealthier families with more opportunity than others. Some people are located in places more strategic than others. Some people have families that are more cohesive than others. A simple fact of reality is equal opportunity is still largely a fallacy

That is funny because western civilization only lives so far due to feudalism and capitalism.
What is the best here?
Why do you think they are inferior to you?

Capitalism is the ultimate meritocratic, because it's about true merits, not just stupid strength.

if you want workers to own the production then why give it all to the state?
these days i.e. in newer companies most employees earn stock options as part of their salary
the cook of faceberg made a couple million $ when they went public

Well, it's in rational self-interest of those born into less fortunate environments to crush those more fortunate. And there is much more of the former, and if they are also more capable then the latter, the latter don't stand a chance. That's why Capitalism breeds Marxism as a consequence, so the cycle continues, like a snake eating itself.

A completely new economical and political system is needed for the optimal society. Capitalism is not optimal, or rational.

Feudalism was the darkest age for the western civilization. Capitalism brought it where it is today, at the brink of extinction.

Because their status is a result of inheritance and not competition. Most rich people are subhumans who maxed out the luck stat.

Feudalism was a transition from the imperalism of Rome. Capitalism is advance feudalism.
Well, you are not stronger than them, or smarter. Because if you are, you wouldn't be whining about rich people here.

None of this answers my question. What system do you propose as a replacement?

It depends on too many factors to really say, but in general I'd say no. Regardless, it's not as if Chile couldn't have both a stable economy and more overall wealth.

It's not because the talent and skill of making money is not the only or even the most important meritorious trait. To believe that the most competent among the cohort of the most greedy have any particular merit worth acclaiming is nothing but the bias engendered by Capitalism's underlying moral system.

Of course libertarians will call out that "taxation is theft", but make no real argument against theft itself, so why not praise the government for being meritorious thieves? Of course they use "force" as well, but why not call out that the government as truly the creme de la creme of thugs in our society? For acclamation of course as thuggery could be arbitrarily seen as a meritorious virtue alongside greed.

What is the actual argument as to why guileful scheming and nebbish bean counting are the only forms of competition that are worthy of merit? The best merchant certainly isn't the best man.

He's making a philosophical argument that National Socialism is a recrudescence of something much older than your Enlightenment Era degenerate monarchies. Martin Heidegger certainly seemed to believe that the Party was channeling some spark of pre-socratic antiquity.

Syndicalism actually

...

Bingo. Pinochet was a cuck.

And Hitler's government was responsible for creating currency.

I'm sure there are some advantages to having a bunch of private bankers (jews) decide fiscal and monetary policy for a country without any input from the people who have to live and work in it (which you're implicitly advocating), but you're not going to be able to advocate that system here.

With whom did he racemix? Currynigger, perhaps?

What is it about focusing on nationalism so much that attracts arousal of that which you despise most? Prior to understanding my nationalistic drive, I thought other races were completely unappealing. It wasn't until I swallowed the red pill that the effect of forbidden fruit became a reality.

I made a few tulpas recently, and that forced me to be harshly honest with myself. Thank god they care for their race. Being a Hermeticist and understanding a little about thoughtforms, I wonder what astral influences might be at play. Perhaps it's the likeness of Yahweh/the Demiurge competing with that of the Hyperboreans. Maybe the trans-Plutonian sources (think analogues of Cthulhu or reptilians) fighting against Wotan, Thor, and so on.

That writer literally wrote that the SS should form the racial elite of Europe which should rule over the world.

It's because they are Americans and don't understand the concept of National SOCIALISM I think. They are indoctrinated to believe that "socialism" is the same as the Jew's communism.

Socialism in an etnically pure state, united by a strong leader, works really well…

In what way is an international entity using extralegal status to go around the backs of nations and civilizations to get what it wants to the detriment of everyone else not corruption?

This doesn't actually answer my question. Again, you are blaming the problems created by international banking cabals and private national banks on Capitalism. The private ownership of property, the operation of the means of production for profit, wage labor, and competitive markets is in no way responsible for any of these problems.

In fact, the lack of actual Capitalism is the real problem here. There is no competitive market in which economic systems might compete against one another to prove which one is best. The international banking cabal has created and maintains a total hegemony on the manner in which banking may be done, and does not permit any other system to even begin to take root.

In actual Capitalism, private national bankers would have to compete with other systems, and the most successful system would prove itself by a simple comparison of how those systems handle themselves in their various nations. Instead, we have a banking monopoly, and anyone who tries to threaten that is toppled in the name of spreading Democracy.

Capitalism isn't the problem here. It's the solution.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the basis of capitalism "Work as hard as you want, to have as much as you want" then got twisted too "Work harder then anyone, to have less then everyone else because the top needs its 2.1k% higher wage, then the cogs of the machine that produce/provide for them and dem niggers/spics/misc are sooooo oppressed so they should just magically get everything handed to them."?

You are an idiot and it is not really worth the effort going in circles with you when you don't accept obvious facts and reality. Where do you think that international elite came from? How did they gain the leverage to use this extralegal methods? The answer to those questions are right in your post.

Budding international elite right here

And the most successful system is crony capitalism, which proves itself every time capitalism arises.

All the origin and foundation of this international elite's power.

The basis of NatSoc is that the people will do what they can for their nation, and in return, they will be taken care of if something should happen to them; like being wounded in a war for your nation.

I think the Führer would also make sure that only real work is rewarded, and people can't get insanely rich on usury.

Communism is a sick version of capitalism.

And going back to the Communist analogy, you should exactly like them.

Substitute capitalism for communism and gulag for "international elite" and there you are.

...

National Socialism can't exist without harnessing the growth potential of a (limited) free market. In this system free enterprise is encouraged-insofar as it is beneficial to the State and its people. In other words usury, banking, and gay porn would probably be banned but in a militaristic state the production of armaments would, naturally, be encouraged.

Thanks for letting me know you're done having a discussion. I appreciate you being forthright about it.

Maybe next time, you'll have better arguments besides "people having money means people will be bribed, so Capitalism = bad."

If you actually believed any of the things you have been saying, you would have been trying to propose some sort of system in which money itself is removed, like some Anarchists and extremist Libertarians who want to shelve the very concept and go back to barter for everything. Instead, you simply parrot these points and then blame Capitalism, like it's some sort of boogey man or voodoo doll. The ability for people to own their own land and the ability for privately owned businesses to run themselves for profit in a competitive market is in no way responsible for any of the things you are blaming Capitalism for. You don't seem to even understand what it is.

Capitalism was not halted in Hitler's Germany. It was simply overseen by an authoritarian government which would step in and shut down any business that was not conducting itself in a manner that put the people first. Considering the context, this was reasonable. But this was in no way not still Capitalism. Call it Nationalist Capitalism, or Controlled Capitalism, or whatever other special snowflake term you want if it matters that much to you, but it was still Capitalism at the end of the day. Germans were allowed to own their own property and businesses, and there was a competitive market that was no less competitive for the fact that it was regulated.

You would have people believe that "a well regulated economy and any market that is not a free market" is somehow not Capitalism, even though it changes nothing about how the term is defined and the concept is viewed.

No,you.

A problem I've seen with the way liberals view things is that something can't exist without abiding by the most puritanical definition-

oy vey that's not true communism! oy vey but having regulations makes it not capitalism anymore!

Failing to understand that definitions can be broader than one person's narrow viewpoint lost my respect for most of today's liberals.

Is Holla Forums really such a shithole that you post here?

Problem with capitalism is rent-seeking. How about free-enterprise?

Free-enterprise is a good idea for the most part, but only on a small scale. Otherwise you get financially savvy types who will manipulate the general public with Jordan Belfort-esque bullshit, and cause enormous financial problems, which affects everyone. There's a reason even very free and effective governments have had to regulate or at least monitor certain large-scale industries, and it's because they'll gamble, fuck up, and take the economy down with them when they do.

That's a good system, but there's a role for money markets and banking in the development of a nation. You couldn't have any corporations without people willing to front the capital. Perhaps a better system is a series of nationalized banks that can provide loans for small businesses, and excess profits are brought back to the people or military.

You can have all the resources you want, but if your economy is shit that means your country is shit. See Africa.
If shoulda coulda, we are talking reality, not what's if scenario where everything is magic unicorn.

Well, where is the philosophy?

Most of the germanic clans hate themselves and would rather take roman gold and kill each other than uniting as a "nation".

And none of those things are "Capitalism" and all of those things can exist without it.

The basis of Capitalism is that economic activity should not be bound either by law or moral considerations, so an international entity using extralegal status to go around the backs of nations and civilizations to get what it wants is Capitalism functioning properly.

Suggesting that the holders of capital be restricted in their economic activity by the concerns of "nations" is an anti-capitalist view.

You're wrong. The basis of Capitalism was always "Peace on Earth, and goodwill toward men".

There is no such thing as a limited free market. It's a free market or it isn't. We already have a term for a limited market. It's called a market.

Is not Capitalism.

Markets existed and people owned property before Capitalism existed. Chimpanzees trade food for favors from other chimpanzees and the form into tribes which have established boundaries which are guarded against other tribes of chimpanzees.

Defining "Capitalism" to mean inherent animalistic behavior is functionally retarded. The word actually has a meaning. People actually came up with an ideology and they called it capitalism.

What the Third Reich had was a market. It did not have a Free Market because they were ideological far leftist loons that believed in Capitalism, an ideology dreamed up by far leftist loons which has a specific meaning.

You can just as easily reverse all of your bullshit into the point that "but it was still Communism at the end of the day" to describe every regime on the planet by describing some aspects of Communism that are inherent to the human species and their societies.

National Socialism was explicitly anti-Capitalist. Currency existed before Capitalism, as did property, and trading. These are not aspects of Capitalism. Capitalism is the ideology that it is immoral to restrict the flow of capital, so restricting the flow of capital for any reason is in fact anti-Capitalist. But especially for reasons of concern of nations as Capitalists came up with Capitalism to destroy different nations of people and unite the world into one human family. So nations are one of the highest evils under a Capitalist worldview, and especially when they restrict trade, because according to Capitalism when trade stops, war starts.

The argument is that under Capitalism bribery is morally acceptable and that those who refuse to take bribes under the auspices of some higher duty to anti-Capitalist forces such as nations, religions, et cetera are immoral. You attaching some moral condemnation to bribery is your anti-capitalist morals getting in the way. Exchange of goods and currency to sway opinions is a proxy for violent conflict. So if you don't have a price for your morals then you have just dictated that you can only be stopped with violence, and are unfit for civilization. Of course this is just a sophists justification for being an ideological zealot, but of course that is what Capitalists are. They are so strong in their moral tribalism that people people fear for abandoning the term even though they don't know what it actually means.

…they were not ideological far leftist loons that believed in Capitalism obviously.

Oh look, we have a Capitalism master here who invents definition for capitalism.

I didn't invent it. The Capitalists did in the 19th century when they came up with their ideology and called Capitalism. Notably they were English speakers and knew what the suffix -ism actually meant unlike you and other retards ITT.

My invention is masticationism. Without masticationism people would still chew their food as an inherent biological function, but I thought it needed a name anyway and it should end with -ism because it just makes total sense and isn't fundamentally idiotic to apply -isms to things that are merely descriptive of biological functions.

Capitalism is an economic system, not an ideology.

You might as well say mercantilism was an ideology because it has the -ism in it.

And capitalists have existed ever since the capitals existed.

Mercantilism was an ideology and I said as much up thread. How exactly is Mercantilism not an ideology?

"The capitals"? You do not need a term (that is specifically an -ism) to describe simple trade mechanics. By your conception then nothing precludes Communism from be Capitalist as the two aren't mutually exclusive as the former includes the use of capital. It is also a term that could be used to describe the behavior of animals. Are there monkey Capitalists?

The term has an actual meaning. It has progenitors who had an ideology who called that ideology Capitalism. If Capitalism does not have an ideological component and is merely descriptive it cannot have ideological objections to ideologies such as socialism and communism. These are mutually exclusive positions. You must pick one.

Mercantilism is not an ideology, it's an economic system.

Communism itself is also an economic system.

Capitals do not mean trade mechanics, it means specifically resources or investments.
Yes, if monkeys hog capitals.
Socialism is an economic system where the workers own the means of production, thus no capitals. Communism is the advanced stage of socialism where there's no state.
In socialist and communist society, there is no capital, thus they are mutually exclusive positions.

Capitalsim as today is just like a big game.
Capitalism once had a golden age mainly the 70s and 80s where it produced incentive and in this framework people are willing to put in effort and manpower to improve the situation for a nation or science or whatever you want to invoke.

Today capitalism came to its conclusion which produces a fucked up meta with all the shit that comes along with it. Like SJWs are shit that produces nothing like computer systems that suck off brainpower of the most gifted people to make money out of nothing, just redistributing it. Basically a more sophisticated broken window fallacy.

And mass immigration is just another move in this game, more people that barely contribute anything to the nation itself but improve sales and profits of a few. And the debt or the side effects gets mainly paid off by the middle or lower class. Same goes for globalism.

Now you can say that this improves other 2nd or 3rd world nations but this only true to a certain extend, those nations nead the technological improvements of the west which will be stifled due to this machinisations. And it will also be against the interest of the elite which are somehow fucking retarded because all the good shit they enjoy and profit off will be severely limited aswell since more and more gifted people will join this game and stop contributing to society at large which will help the elite aswell.
So i ask myself why the fuck is the elite so fucking retarded. Either due to low iq and high psychopathy or they webbed themselves into a net they cannot escape like a domino effect where all the dirt will be visible or made visible by other players. I guess this is due to paranoia or knowing the consequences this would cause because they know the mob is really angry.

Just look at the US Military. It's a giant machine that wastes money on bullshit. Everything good about the US Military came from private industry. The US shut down Springfield Armory(government run arms manufacturer) because the private market was so much more efficient.

No. Businesses that only exist because of government contracts are not "private industry." Technology that was only created by government funding is not victory of "private industry." Cleanse your mind of that cuckservative nonsense.

Communism is an ideology. It has never existed in reality (and cannot exist in reality), which is why it is an ideology and not an economic system. Along with the many non-economic ideas and philosophy underlying the assumptions of communism.

Oy vey don't criticize america ! It's D&C goyim! America can't do any wrong !

There was no discussion because you never addressed my points, just kept repeating "that's not capitalism" and stupid libertardian slogans.

And NS is completely different because capital was subordinated to the state. NS did not maintain capitalism because capital did not have the leverage necessary to enact the cycle I laid out. It was nothing at all like capitalism, unless you use some deficient definition of capitalism like "private ownership" or whatever.

What the fuck are you talking about? Private contractors are competing for government funding all the time. They're funded by the state but they're not directed by it. They aren't government organizations they're private organizations hired by the government for specific tasks and manufacturing. They still exist independently from the government. The only difference between this and commercial markets is that the government/military is the only customer that needs to be courted into buying their products. And often times the US government isn't the only customer, it's just the one with the biggest budget.

back to leftypol, poverty fetishist.

Yes, and that makes them not private industry.

You're a fucking moron. They're as much of a state organization as a mercenary company. Companies such as raytheon or lockheed martin are effectively just the evolution of the PMC. Instead of selling manpower to enforce security they sell the technologies to enforce security. Their customers are governments, they aren't part of the governments they sell to in the same way walmart isn't communally owned even though it sells its products to your community.

8ch.net/leftypol/res/672721.html
Sure enough, it's a Holla Forums D&C op.

no u

Which are effectively state organizations.

If your primary (or only) income is government funding, then you are not private.

This doesn't surprise me even remotely. The whole thread stinks of the red fucks.

Like this goy:

You've got a backwards definition of a private organization if you're defining it by their market. By your logic there's no such thing as a private company because virtually all of them have to pander to their external public consumer base, therefore all companies are directed by the public, i.e. not private. That's completely fucking retarded and one of the biggest problems with marxist communism.

The governments these companies sell to do not call the shots for these companies. Its completely up to them whether they want to fill for a contract or not. The governments do not force them, only their capital gives them incentive. They are neither government owned nor operated. There's technically nothing physically or legally stopping them from selling their products overseas to multiple governments simultaneously. So if that happens then who owns them? Are they owned by the conglomeration of several independent governments? Even if some of those governments are enemies with one another? And if you want to conclude that governments are owned by corporations bribing their politicians, then by that logic those corporations control the private government contractors. Which are then controlled by their customer base in regression. This is why defining a company's independence on who they sell to is a waste of time as it just defaults to a universal collectivism.

This is why you pseudo-intellectual naziboofaggots/larping communists in disguise can't ever seem to get your shit together. Socialism was and is a failure in every and all iterations. Gluing "National" onto the front of it won't change that. I don't buy the "just focus on the 'National' part goyim, our brand of socialism totally different from those other kinds" argument. You're just using nationalism as an excuse to smuggle in socialism where it doesn't belong.

horseshoe theory

>>>/oven/

Because I like private property you fucking commie.

Capitalism isn't really a man-made system, at least not in the sense that someone had to set it up. It's just the name for the natural workings of the market.

8ch.net/leftypol/res/672721.html

OP confirmed judeo-communist shill.

Those things are the literal definition of Capitalism.

Your asinine rejection of the definition of words you happen to dislike does not alter reality to suit you, it merely makes you yet another censorious leftist idiot who wants to evangelically proselytize their own personal special snowflake dictionary instead of actually debating and discussing the merits and drawbacks of systems.

I would ask you if you follow the Austrian Theorist school of economic thought, but I have a sneaking suspicion you wouldn't even understand the question.

Colonial Scrip, Lincoln's Greenbacks, England's Tally Stick system, and National Socialist Germany's labor-backed fiat currency are the best systems, both actual and, in the case of Greenbacks, proposed, that we have ever had, specifically because they directly combat the gambit of the banking and donor class which funnels money upwards. The 90% give their money to the 10%, then 10% to the 1%, and the 1% to the 0.1%. All of these systems are, in other words, usury proof, or at the very least, powerfully resistant to it.

Only a system of money which prohibits the artificial introduction of scarcity (which is the ultimate Globalist plot for controlling the masses, by convincing them that there isn't enough food, water, or electricity to go around when there is) and encourages the constant circulation of money instead of the aggregation of wealth is suitable for long-term economic stability and health.

This is something even the Libertarians, and especially Ron Paul, fail to grasp, because tying a currency to gold still allows for the enforcement of artificial scarcity, to the tune of flooding or starving the market of bullion. Spoiler alert: out of all of the gold that has been mined in the 20th century onwards, only about 20ish percent of it is in circulation as backed currency or jewelry. Over 80% of it is unaccounted for, which means it is being held by private hands in off-the-books stashes. Switching to gold is the fake revolution meant to co-opt the true economic and financial redpill. You're just trading one petrodollar for another, only instead of the bankers indirectly controlling the value of our wealth by manipulating the Arabs, they can directly control it since they have all the gold.

Usury is not Capitalism. Bribery is not Capitalism. Capitalism does not "inevitably lead" to either of these two things.

Go watch Princes of the Yen, The Money Masters, and Damon Vrabel, and start browsing realcurrencies.wordpress. Give yourself a fucking education, instead of the blatant faux-revolutionary progressive brainwashing you've obviously been receiving.

Benjamin Franklin had no formal schooling whatsoever in the field of economics, just a large amount of common sense, an English lawyers education, and relatively clean fingernails that smelled oddly of fish, and yet he'd shit all over you, your Marxist professors, and every single one of the stuffed Austrian turkeys the Jewish elite bribed into extolling the virtues of usury.

It's like you don't even understand why Hitler actually had war forced onto him in the first place, or something.

It's an economic system.

Nothing says that it must be real in order to be an economic system.

Frankly, your English is borderline unintelligible. "The capitals" means nothing in an economic context. Capital does not mean trade mechanics, but we aren't discussing Capital, but Capitalism which you are saying is "just an economic system" would basically render the term to mean essentially nothing but trade mechanics.

Of course there is, it's just not privately owned. Capital is any non-financial asset. There are certainly durable goods in existence under Communism, so Capital exists. If all it takes for "Capitalists" to exist is Capital then how are Communist Capitalists mutually exclusive. There is no ideological component to Capitalism that requires private ownership of property. People can choose to collectively own property. If you couldn't do so under Capitalism then that would be a point of ideology.

Are you now saying that it requires more than the existence of Capital? I mean if you can have monkey Capitalism, which you have established that we can, then we can certainly have Communist Capitalism. Would not all Communists be de facto Capitalists, just Capitalists that advocate a particular scheme of full public ownership? It sounds an awful like like there is an ideological sticking points between Capitalism and voluntary full public ownership of all capital.

If Capitalism isn't an ideology and is "just an economic system" then why does that eminent economist who is credited with first describing Capitalism Adam Smith go on ad nauseum in The Wealth of Nations about morality and denigrating notions of British Honor as being detrimental to the smooth functioning of the market. To the point of basically saying that such a morality that leveraged courage and national pride needed to be replaced by "shopkeeper morality" for a truly free market to exist. You can find similar philosophical points made by his contemporaries. You can certainly find even more egregious hyper-liberal commentary among the Manchester Capitalists who carried the work of these "economists" who were more akin to moral philosophers to the government.

Your argument would have to be that Smith, Ricardo, Mill, the Manchester crew et al were actually corrupting Capitalism (which they invented, explicated and implemented) as they were merely coiners of a term as Capitalism has existed for all time, even before humanity among birds who barter in nesting materials an shiny objects.

Or maybe the Manchester Capitalists were actually inventing something new based upon avante garde left-wing morals that was specifically and clearly pejorative of traditional morals as well as contrary to the ideological jumping off point of Mercantilism which was that Nations were in competition with each other.

Of course Mercantilism isn't an ideology so it didn't actually try to maximize wealth and autonomy through a command economy overseen by national governments. It had no ideological assumptions and this happened by accident.

Has Mercantilism always existed or only Capitalism?

There are also plenty of non-economic ideas underlying Capitalism. If you actually read to Marx you'd probably realize that as he doesn't lay out some new morality initially. The work has already been laid out for him by Adam Smith who basically describes the New Soviet Man in The Wealth of Nations. The moral argument for a single global collective of humans without nations, religions, races, et cetera all predate Communism and they all come from Capitalists. Somehow this moral argument for Capitalism made by Capitalists is not a part of Capitalism. Based on that then the moral arguments for Communism by Communists don't have to be a part of Communism either. But everyone is so steeped in Cold War propaganda and Libertarian sophistry in which they argue for Economic Liberalism (an ideology and moral philosophy) for moral reasons under the name Capitalism, and when non-economic arguments are made against what is being advocated they revert to a second meaning of Capitalism which is "just an economic system". Except there is no distinction between Capitalism and Economic Liberalism.

If you don't agree with the moral philosophy of Adam Smith then you don't wind up agreeing that his economics has either desirable ends nor the means to achieve them. Maximizing material gains by the holders of the most Capital is purely a bias. Just as much as Mercantile economists orienting their arguments around what would make Imperialist/Colonialist States the most powerful comparative to their rivals. Capitalists did not win the moral argument. They did win the argument showing how the holders of the most Capital could be richer by not caring about their countries and people however and they were the ones calling the shots. Of course the ideological underpinning of Capitalism is that you shouldn't care about those things anyway and that if you do you are an immoral warmonger.

They aren't. At all.

You are right, which is why I accept what Ricardian Economics, the first implementation of Capitalism has to say on the subject, which is deeply steeped in moral philosophy. Moral philosophy which appears in their books on "economics" as a justification for the implementation of their ideas which were contrary to the social order of the day which was about maximizing the economic power of nations in comparison to their rival national governments. Capitalists believe this comes at the expense of the global mass of humanity. I say "humanity" is a bullshit concept that is inherently left-wing and only exists to obfuscate friend/foe distinctions which left-wingers hate and pretend don't exist.

I don't need your fucking youtube videos because I was actually educated outside of Wikipedia U and have read what the very first people to be called Capitalists had to say about the system that they envisaged and invented. The actual primary sources. I've also read primary sources which predate Capitalism on political economy and moral philosophy as well as the contemporary critiques of Capitalism that predate Marx. These are critiques that come from the Right because Capitalism is a Leftist conception and everyone involved from top to bottom was a Leftist who justified the system based on Leftist assumptions which were totally dominant at the time (and still are today).

I'm not a Capitalist because I'm right-wing and Capitalism is an ideology of the Far Left. I don't give a shit about "peace on Earth and goodwill toward men" which was the explicitly stated goal of the first Capitalist reformers before parliament. The quotation marks aren't for emphasis. It's an actual quote. I'm not a Capitalist because I hate pacifism and know "rights" and "humanity" don't exist so I frankly don't give a fuck about your yearning to make anime real. It never will be.

I'm also not a complete fucking retarded who thinks the Third Reich was Capitalist. Find me the reputable Capitalist who says that Nazi Germany was Capitalist. The only faggots who say that are Communists who say everything they don't like is Capitalism.

Was not a Capitalist. He died more than half a century before the first Capitalist gave their first speech before the first government to grant one of them such a platform.

Regardless, could Benjamin Franklin actually answer any of my criticisms of liberalism, because I'm pretty sure he was issued the same criticisms when he was still alive and much like Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the rest of the never-had-a-real-job clique that hosted a Revolution to implement the 18th century equivalent to the Soviet Union he never actually was able to address any of them. He only ever pontificated to Whigs and Jacobins that already agreed with him. If he could shit on people with his braindead liberalism why did he choose to hide his tail between his legs relying on the Jeffersonian masterstroke of "We hold these truths to be self-evident…" Which I can translate into modern English for you. "Because we say so…." Rights are fake and gay and liberalism is even gayer. Franklin can take his equality and shove it up his abolitionist, nigger loving ass.

I'll leave you with an actual great American. Alexander Stephens, "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Or if you'd prefer Thomas Jefferson's cousin, "I'm an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality." In case that's confusing that means liberty for me, but not for thee. Because you are inferior piece of leftist shit who deserves to be subjugated so that your labor can be put to my use.

Of course I do. He was going to destroy the Soviet Union, which was the project of western Capitalists who wanted to see where it would go and if it would be a better way to reach the end goals of Capitalism faster. So the Capitalist world came to together to engage in a Holy War to save the Soviet Union from destruction.

It's almost like Capitalism and Communism aren't diametrically opposed or something. It's almost like they are closely related ideologies whose common intellectual ancestry is actually on a couple of decades apart and they basically agree on the same ends, just not over if those ends justify the means in achieving them. Personally I think the ends sound like total shit and the means are even worse regardless of which one you are talking about.

Filtered for being a troll. Go back to Holla Forums. I'm sure empty buzzwords, the redefinition of words, and the reattribution of truths works wonders on moronic ledditors and the honeypot tenders over on Facebook, but it doesn't fly here. You were given your fair shake, and you are either a deliberate saboteur or so unfathomably stupid that it isn't worth the time to attempt to educate you.

You were given the sources you need to inform yourself. My duty towards you ends there.

I know, but my response was to a guy who didn't even mention capitalism. I am fully in agreement with everything you wrote in this thread.

An economic system must be able to function in reality. Communism as described by Marx et al. cannot function in reality, so it is not an economic system. Communism is an ideology because it exists entirely in the abstract as a collection of concepts divorced from reality.

No, they have to pander to private entities, and their business reflects this. Government contractors are not private because they are not funded by private entities, but by public funds. They do not operate within a private market, but within a government market. Very different. They are de facto an arm of the government.

Evola's ontology and conception of race is explicitly metaphysical. Besides, he hadn't any children.

What do you mean, then? Having sexual relations with other races isn't race mixing, spawning Mischlinge is.

No, because those complexes benefit society as a whole. What you have in the US I would call "state capitalism".

Nice trips. What do they mean in the context of your post?

HEIL HITLER

Not sure about NS, but at least fascism is more a kind of emergency program than a full-fledged system meant for the long-term. Fascism exists to pull your nation out of the depths of depravity what happens afterwards has to be decided on its own merit.

Well said, very good. That's indeed how I see it.

Not many of us old-schoolers left.

Yes, but was he worse that the other cuck (KGB plant Allende) would have been?

Fuck you and don't even think about stealing my shit you useless plebe.

I think you inherently have less personal freedom outside of a homogeneous group because you're too busy worrying about getting shot stabbed or jewed. I want a strong leader to deal with this so I don't have to. So yeah, you nailed it. I believe NatSoc is the closest thing to this. Do you think that is accurate?