Capitalism destroying Europe

Stefan is a hack. I tried to tell that to Holla Forums a lot of times, but you don't listen.

He doesn't understand what he is saying and probably only cares about money he's receiving from his viewers.

He's a trap.

...

None of what you said was an argument and my phone doesn't play webm's..

So.. I'll just disregard your opinion until i get some better evidence

Varg is full of shit.

What he could do is exchange "CAPITALISM" with "DEMOCRACY" and all of his data would still work.

But it would not be an argument against capitalism then, and his whole thesis would fall short.

1. not an argument

2. Stefan has his shortcomings and some of what he says should be taken with a grain of salt BUT he drops some serious truth bombs and is probably a lot more redpilled than he lets on

Varg is a cuckold fedora with daddy issues

whoops, had sage on from an earlier thread

That's a typical fanaticism over e-celeb.

Bad posts.

fuck off

Nod an argumend :DD

He's nearly Holla Forums-tier at this point. He dropped a "he wuz a good boi dindu nuffin" in one of his more recent talks.

you think he's making more than double that from his free radio show, fuccboi?

holy shit no way…I heard him say 'goy' a few months ago

This is what a D+C shill looks like.

Also, daily reminder that Varg is himself a D+C shill. He spends much more time telling us to ignore good people like Moly, "don't vote for Trump lets all wait for magic hitler, guise", "all is lost" defeatist bullshit, "capitalism is evil, please buy my board game!"

Again, Varg is a fucking idiot.

I don't agree with that. His words are simple, but wise, you can learn a lot from him. Although I am with you regarding his stance that we should leave bluepilled normies to fend for themselves. I think a lot of them can be saved.

He is against both Capitalism and Communism as am I and everyone on this board who understands the impact of these ideologies on our people. Both of them are anti-nature, globalist ideologies and I would say that in the long run Capitalism is even worse,
because it cripples people from rising against it by its consumerism.

Capitalism and free markets died a long time ago, user. We have a corporatist oligarchy ruling a mixed market economy.

your nose is visible from orbit, schlomo

I agree with you, but I think he's wrong in attributing this solely to capitalism, when there has been decades of cultural subversion and ethnomasochism leading up to the refugees welcome bullshit.

I'm not convinced by his ideas on tribalism either, if he really means that we should go back to a more primitive way of living, or whether he just means "tribalism" in the sense of an ethnostate, which is fine.

reported.

This.

Yeah, feudal lords people. Just like now oligarch rule, they just have to hire politicians to do their bidding. Free market ends up in monopolies("winners"), and monopoly-owners have so much wealth they can buy all political power they want, democracy as a will of the people doesn't exist then.

Socialism with democracy - people sharing all the political and economical power, that's your perfect solution.

Capitalism died during World War One.

vimeo.com/101487179

Free trade has nothing to do with immigration or social policy.

The Eastern Bloc was united by dominant Slavic culture and the fact that you had to be insane to want to move there so immigration was extremely low. The Western bloc was obsessed with 'muh Holocaust' and swung completely the other way - and the entire world wanted to come in. The difference was the the West, with liberal democracy and freedom of expression, allowed the Jewed media to propagate over-empathy and self-hatred, something the Slavs were never exposed to.

modern liberalism which attacks existing social structures without replacing them with anything. Ethnic identity, religion, nationalism, family, all conventional notions of value are mocked, attacked, and dismantled and replaced with, well, nothing. Nothing but consumption. Now your identity isnt about family, shared history, or religion - it's all about the brands you consume.

Anything revolutionary or traditional has been absorbed, repackaged and sold back to you by capitalism.

Political correctness is a tool used by liberals to make themselves feel good about themselves but not to actually solve any problems.

Instead of worshiping god or having a family structure, people worship brands, they consume and consume and consume, cpatlims is a brain virus embedded into minds of people who live under it.

This is why now poltics is intertwined with consuming, beyonce pretending to be a feminist, if you dont watch the female ghost busters you are a misogynist.

Things are more multicultural because capitalism profits off of it without actually fixing anything or solving poverty.

Ask Varg why he refuses to address the Muslim problem in his backyard. Prepare to laugh.

You basically described every cucked country in Europe.

Leave Stefan alone. He's doing God's work and is getting better every week.

Varg knows this, he's just being a dickhead.

You still don't get it. We have socialism with democracy in most of Europe.

It's not Capitalism that's the problem. Not even Socialism. It's Democracy.

He doesn't attribute it solely to capitalism, in the video he just shows that countries under Capitalism are far more degenerate than those who were under Communism. It was a video against the Capitalist and free-market worshippers.

As I understand him he's saying that since the government doesn't work for our interests any more, we should form our own isolated communities and become as much independent as possible, but I don't think this is a good idea, because we need to get normies to follow us.

Watch his other videos, this one is actually one of the least interesting he made and I don't get why he attacked Stefan, I think he's becoming pretty based lately.

Except that those countries he marked as "capitalist" were actually "democratic" countries.

This is one of the the things Stef said about jews, for anyone who's interested. Basically in a weak way he explains that jews have an in-group preference and don't mix with goys.

Get lost faggot, I'm not arguing with retards like you.

Because he's a cunt.

Daily reminder, Euronymous was a faggot commie.

kek

Capitalism is dead. All that shit has been done by your corporatist oligarchs in your mixed markets.

Stop blaming shit on things that don't even exist anymore. What you are doing is the equivalent of calling Merkel Hitler all the time, and attributing the failure of her policies to Hitler and his ideology. Saying Capitalism caused the death of social structures is like saying Hitler is cucked by the United States (while implying that we need Merkel to uncuck Germany). It's vile slander, and conflates things to make the situation seem like the opposite of what it is.

One of the primary, if not the first targets of cultural marxism is the language. Orwell wrote on this. Every user should be aware of it, and stop playing into the hands of the communist Jew by playing their word games.

...

Where did I say that? What the fuck are you quoting?

I am implying that free market is not the issue, but that the issue is democratic form of government.
Which by democracy is always shit, or turns to shit over time.

It doesn't matter whether you have democratic capitalism, democratic socialism or whatever, your country will be subverted so long as there is someone willing to subvert.

What you could be saying is that the need for Capitalism by the people died in ww1, but to say that it no longer exists and that every consequence of it is void is laughable.

Yeah, I think that if it wouldn't be for Varg, Mayhem would take over the black metal scene and it would become a communist music genre.

Here you seem to imply that these countries were democratic and not capitalist. If that was not your intention, I apologize.

In order to serve to the best interests of your people you need to regulate imports and exports, so I think that a completely free market is a big issue, it causes outsourcing of jobs, products that are toxic to people and can make your country dependant on others fairly quickly.

I agree with the rest of your post.

I'm not really surprised Varg has a typicall user Holla Forums level understanding of economics.

well, i don't have a negative impression of either socialism or capitalism, they're both opposite sides of the same heeb coin. you could look at ww2 as these 2 sides uniting together to overpower nationalism, and the following cold war a dispute between the victors over whose interpretation of de-racinated internationalism was the better for the jews.
race: your nation and your people are what matters. economics is secondary to this and must at all times act to the benefit of the people.

I think the main issue here is putting a profit ahead of the benefits toward your people (capitalism) or enslaving your people through pathological altruism (socialism).
I think both of these approaches have occurred in the west as of now… and we know who's responsible.
It's too simplistic to say that the free-market or social welfare programs cannot both be beneficial in a controlled and moderate fashion.

I like them both, with reservations. But nobody's perfect.

It's not "capitalism" which is the problem, it's Jews.

If you have a white nation state, then 95% of all the services can be supplied by the private sector.

Finland was capitalist but it never cucked.

Exactly, the only real opposition to the enemies of our people were the fascist revolutions of 1920s and 1930s. Fascism and National Socialism were also the only ideologies who presented solutions to post-industrial era that were actually working in the interests of their respective nations.

...

Yeah, because immigrants work harder than the natives.

Don't try and put words in my mouth, the words coming out of yours barely make any sense.

Capitalism is a form of business, democracy is a form of government. I understand that Communism combines the two but that's not how capitalism or democracy work. Please consult a dictionary because you're embarrassing yourself.

Accumulating capital to form a profit-making business doesn't cause degeneracy to become enabled. Mass media convincing over 50% of people in a democracy that some freaks should have rights does. It's not hard to figure this out.

Holla Forums embraces the slippery slope very well.

Capitalism = freedom = degeneracy.

Thus we must ban everything.

this played right into the hands of the commies.

He already criticized communism and reminded it in the comment section of this videos on capitalism. He's aware of the jewish false dichrotomia on communism/capitalism and how
a traditional nation would be better.

A traditional nation is a capitalist nation since it has private property.

It's alright, I see it as completely separate category. One of economy, other of ruling.

Well there is a lot of truth there. But I am of opinion that (free) market and exchange of capital/valuables is something people do naturally by themselves, just as they gather around to socialize.
It would be silly to completely restrict this to something completely unnatural to humans, more fitting for species like ants (which would be communism).

So in other words - totally free market? Perhaps not. But to completely eliminate free market and competition from people's lives is a disaster. Even in Hitler's Germany there was free market, in non-anarchist sense of the word.

Europe (and USA) was greatest because our ancestors embraced capitalism and competition. Now, when socialism destroyed us, colectivist cucks who caused this, blame capitalism for destruction of our civilization.

I can agree with this.

Either way, I think it's more to do with politics rather than the economics. It's not like there wasn't capitalism prior to the state of today's world, so it doesn't make any sense.

Socialism is owning means of productions, without private "free" market. No one to bribe officials when there are no oligarchs.

Most people on Holla Forums have a child's view of economics. You either get these idiots who think capitalism solves everything or the idiots who think capitalism is cancer, let's all be socialists.

Sometimes i wish people were embracing the "socialist" part of national socialism. And not listening to leftypol propaganda against socialist values in nazi germany.

I wish people would finally understood that nationalist workers, even if "low class", in eyes of capitalist, should be counted as classless workers if necessary, to preserve a nations without classes for its own people.

A normal society have free enterprise (overall).

Capitalism =/= Free Enterprise.

Capitalism have it, but also priority of finance and capital to real economics, and the validation of usury, among other bad things

Stop believing in Cold War propaganda.

Notice how they jump straight to capitalism being bad, never democracy. Even though Europe and it's colonies rose upon the backs of capitalism and specifically limited democracy (slaves, women and non-land owning men couldn't vote). Then universal suffrage comes in 100 years ago, Western society turns to shit and they blame it on capitalism when the thing that changed was democracy.

Faith in democracy is the biggest hurdle to overcome, everyone believes it blindly and blames other things for their problems. Even the very thing that brought them so much prosperity.

IT's the same thing with LARPers who blame Christianity for Europe's problems, while failing to realize that all of the cucked countries have turned their backs on God.

Yeah, by that definition Bernie's America wouldn't be socialism either.

It's not just people on Holla Forums it's most people. They reduce everything to capitalism and communism. Our politicians pretend that we still live in a capitalist economy just to appeal to this simplistic thinking. Exactly why democracy doesn't work, people don't understand anything at all.

Most people have Holla Forums have no idea of economics overall, a big part is that the libertarians have left.

The nazi's "socialism" is based on prussian socialism, which is nothing like the mainstream socialism.

You are arguing that nazi socialism is actually the real one, when it's just a reaction against mainstream socialism.

The nazis enjoy class collaborationist, not class struggle.

Yeah, let's just believe in Hitlerite propaganda instead.

What do you suppose is the "real economy"?

As always people don't differentiate between political and economical system. Right now we have democracy with capitalism, a.k.a. plantation owner allows slaves to choose their overseers. Democracy with socialism means people choose the guy that does management work in their name, and for their profit. It's not dictatorship with socialism, like Stalin, etc, or monarchy with capitalism (lolbertarianism) - "i can do whatever the fuck i want".

So you are arguing for soc dem, which is basically the cucked form of both system?
You get fucked by the corporations and the state at the same time?

Why are the memes always true?

its simple

- Bad socialism - when it benefits everyone and anyone who opposes it must be repressed

-Good socialism - benefits only citizen of your country, and you must respect them no matter what work they have, and give them enough benefit for their needs, to help every man to build a big large family, to increase your national demographics.

No, democracy with socialism means media and government education determine the guy that does management in interest of them, not the people.

I really don't follow this narrative of capitalism being the decline of Western civilization. How can you even say that you're Westernizing the West? It's obvious this is the consequence of WW2, politics, and everything else. I'll admit that economic liberalism and free trade could play a part in this, but overall it's clear that world events and politics is the more obvious reason for this downfall.

It's the end result of WW2, internationalism, and leftists that made this problem.

In fact, corporatism is the problem. Not capitalism.

Corporatism =/= Free Market.

So mandatory thought control and welfare state.

This. Giving the vote to everyone makes your government as weak as the bottom 50% of society.

I don't follow.

Are you telling me it wasn't the consequence of WW2, globalism, and leftists?

Yes and it is also an economic and political system. It's Capitalist economic system that is flooding us with shitskins for cheaper labour force, it is free market that causes outsourcing of our jobs to 3rd world countries. It is the main driving force toward Globalism today.

Yeah it was actually more free market than people think. NSDAP encouraged people to make small businesses and was against such things as massive malls. They used free market to the extent of which it produced quality over quantity.

You have Donald Trump - a capitalist vs Bernie Sanders - an actual real socialist (he never had any private property).

Who do you choose?

Are we talking the fascist concept or the le ebbin cyberpunk ""Corporatism""

So if the nazis do it, it's good free market.

If everyone else do it, it's the bad free market.

As long its a white man who brings 7 or more kids into this world you allow all possibilities for them to achieve previously high class jobs without any problems.

Thought control and welfare is necessary only for white folk. Not immigrants, which should be forbidden.

7>1, if you will make education more proper for them to take over best jobs you have to offer for them.

You're the state and you're the corporation. If anything, you fuck yourself.

You think the ones you vote for represent you, ha ha.

Also. Jewry created corporatism to corrupt capitalism. The biggest corporations controls the state or are controlled by the state. Their monopoly kills the free market. Corporatism is more close to communism than capitalism.

We're not living in a capitalist society.

You are trying to solve the birthrate problem by throwing money into it huh?

With democracy you can change the guy. You can't change oligarchs that inherit capital and corporations for generations.

Democracy creates a bureaucrat, changing one or two puppet doesn't destroy the bureaucrat.

At least in monarchy, you know which family to kill, in a democracy, you gotta purge the whole thing.

No, because in capitalism oligarchs that have money rule. With socialism there are no big money players that corrupt everything.

The word corporatism was wrongly (maybe intentionally?) translated from Mussolini's Fascism. It should be translated to something like Cooperativism, meaning class cooperation.

Sorry if it came out this way, my Capitalist friend, this was not my intention. I never argued against free market as a whole. What I'm saying is that completely free market without any regulations is not beneficial for the nation.

This is how modern russia tries to fix it, by the way.

When money aren't spent on making better commercialized products or stupid shit people waste their money on, its the best to spend it on children.

Yeah, as evidenced in no-oligarchs paradise such as the Soviet Union.
As long as there is an organization, there's going to be corruption.

this tbh
hi music is bretty gud though

No wonder the quality of posts in Holla Forums have dropped lately.

Not much of a record for that killing, they rule for generations without problems.

No, it refers to "corpore", meaning body, because it thinks of the nation as just that.
Just as a heart will never be a liver, the workers will never be engineers and doctors, but the nation still needs both.

The Romanov family?

No democracy between Stalin and the fall. Still - no oligarchs.

You can in theory. But it doesn't happen because:

-The same Oligarchs own the media, by which people decide their vote
-The same Oligarchs affect education of the people
-The same Oligarchs donate to candidates, and to their promotion

Why do you think third party candidate can't ever win in USA? Because he has got none of the above. It doesn't matter how much better he is, or how much good he wishes for the people.

So no, democracy does not really allow for change of the Oligarchs. You need a genius to trick them which is extremely rare event. And then the question is whether the trickster is a sellout or not.

Look at Singapore for capitalism/neo-feudalism in action.

inb4 muh Singapore has no culture

They ruled from 1613 to the 1917. Not much killing.

There was no oligarchs and the shit was worse than with the oligarchs.

At least with the oligarchs, there's no breadlines.

Communism is the worst thing ever.

Again, that's democracy with capitalism. Not democracy with socialism - no oligarchs then.

Right, an organic society, that's basically the philosophy behind class cooperation, thanks for the info though.

They were killed in the very end.

Still, the point is that they can easily be killed.

No such thing with a democracy's bureaucrat with hundred of families.

In the end, a corrupted monarchy/dictator system is still easier to fix than a corrupted democracy.

...

No, these complaints actually make sense since the Christian church/representatives actively ask for refugees, only to be turned down by the government.

They weren't doing anyone a favor there.

300 years vs every 4-5 years elections. Not really.

And?

The bureaucrats will fill in the same place as the oligarchs.

He keeps mentioning trade deficits with the rest of the world. Trump keeps mentioning trade deficits too and how he wants to get rid of the deficits.

That's good right? Does this mean Trump wants to crash the fiat currency system with no survivors? Explain it to me like I don't understand shit because I don't.

Found it at last:

juliusevola.net/excerpts/Tyranny_of_the_Economy_&_Pseudo-Antithesis_between_Capitalism_&_Marxism.html

The point at which there is no oligarchs in socialism is the point where you completely abolish private ownership of means of production. And at that point your country is shit either way.

Not really what?

The Romanov can be easily killed in a revolution, if the populace wants to happen.

The bureaucrats in a democracy? Tough luck.

"Western Capitalism" is only Capitalism in name, and that markets decide prices.

It's more accurately Corporate Socialism. Business basically dictates to Government how regulations that effect/impact them should be written and enforced.

A mixed economy is, however comma space, the master race of economic models.

All you REALLY need from Capitalism is let markets set prices. Even the whole private control of the means of production can honestly be supplanted. It's that command economies simply cannot function.

So in short, we shouldn't pay THAT much attention towards the economy?

This is how the jews get to power though, by money.

The bureaucrat is an office worker, not the ruler. WITH THE BIG EVIL RUBBER STAMP THAT DESTROYS ECONOMIC LIBERTY!!!, that's what you mean, i guess

Is Holla Forums in this thread?

Yes, plus a mix of libertarians still in denial, and D&C anons

Uh, yeah, considering these rubber stamps decide the direction of your life, economy and society.

In the US the bureaucrat is an office worker put there by corporate boards that finance and own the political ruling class.

If you OWN the ruling class, you ARE the ruling class.

The biggest difference between the US and China, economically, is in China the government runs finance, and in the US finance runs government.

You prefer capitalistic "prosperity" with debt, fiat money and rich that own everything (and you don't). Good luck.

ᚹᚨᚱᚷ

Do you understand the point of killing the romanov?

I'm trying to argue that a corrupted monarchy is easier to fix than a corrupted democracy, which is why monarchy/dictactorship is actually the safer system.

As opposed to you not owning anything in socialist society because private property is abolished and "everyone" owns the means of production?

Leftypol would instead say anything they have against varg's arguments.

The problem is "christians", catholics and orthodoxes in special.

The core of the problem always and will always be (((THEM))).

Better to own 1/xxx million share of everything, than no shares.

Also i am tired from people, that understand that communism is jewish ideology, but don't understand that capitalism
IS ALSO JEWISH IDEOLOGY, YOU STUPID FUCKS.

Hitler was better than any neo-nazis you have here.

Best post.

You actually own a share in capitalist society as long as you work.

In socialist society, you don't own jackshit, it's "everyone" i.e. the state that does.

It seems so.

The point of killing the Romanovs was so that Jews could take over Russia in revenge against the Tsarist government.

Holla Forums would agree with Varg's argument.

And it's easily done, as opposed to dethroning the Soviet.

To this day, there are still more Soviet than Romanov.

Since Hitler employs capitalism, I guess he also uses a jewish ideology?

inb4 but duh Hitler doesn't employ capitalism because reason

Nah add in guns and a healthy nam8ng if the hew and you have Germany of Hitler's day.

That's why they shill America so hard. We're one good mass redpill away from going full 1488 on everyone's ass. It will happen too.

Holla Forums would probably hate Varg because he's a religious anti-semitic traditionalist.

Meritocracy =/= (((capitalism)))

Germany in Hitler's day still has rich people and poor people.

They weren't equal.

Now that's a real leftypol propaganda. Hitler never employed capitalism. His ideas were national socialistic.

The idea that Hitler was a capitalist comes from a deep level of propaganda against nationalists, that still listen to his words.

They are made to make nationalist more unsure of their own ideas. Corporation rights don't matter. Rights of your national citizen matter more than anything in this world.

So apparently, Hitler employed meritocracy and not capitalism.

Nazis will just straight up make shit up now.

The commies do not care for your retarded definition, if you have private properties, you are having capitalism, full stop.

Culture is destroyed by a number of forces but not capitalism. Cultural Marxism, destruction of traditional ideals, and removal of God all contribute.

Culture created through movies, TV, Music, new religions, sjwism, all have to be controlled to eliminate degenerate ideas from becoming part of society.

Capitalism is the single best system to create prosperity for those that are willing to work. Political corruption and private central banks are the weakness of Capitalism. This can be fixed.

Socialism takes away freedom and enable lazy people to leech off the work of other. Communism is the extreme of this.

I don't give a single fuck about what the ütermenchen commies think.

Heres a tip if you are completely uneducated on economics shut the fuck up a listen.

This is completely untrue and in fact the opposite. A monopoly is only able to be maintained in a statist economy.

Lets say I have a great new product in a free market. I was the first inventor and the first one to market such a product so I have the natural monopoly. What stops someone from copying my product and selling it? Nothing. There are not copy rights laws in a free market and if you can manufacture a product invented by another for a cheaper price in higher volumes you will sell more. This of course does not exclude others from manufacturing the same or similar product to compete in a market. No monopolies that last for long.

In a statist economy you can buy politicians who can pass laws and institute policies that would enable you to become a cartel for products maintaining a monopoly through the force of the state.

In a Free Market there is no political power that can effect the market otherwise it would cease to be a free market.

this is EXACTLY what most of the western world is working on now and how the fuck is that working out?

STOP CALLING WHAT WE HAVE NOW CAPITALISM! We are in a socialist democratic system that is going to urn into Venezuela if we don't start getting back to capitalism and free market economics.

← THIS IS THE PICTURE THAT IS USED BY ENTIRETY OF LEFTYPOL TO FOOL YOU INTO BELIEVING THAT HITLER WAS A CAPITALIST.

REMEMBER THIS PICTURE

YOU ARE BEING FOOLED ON DEEP JEWISH LEVEL.

Seems like Holla Forums would love Hitler then.

Hitler let markets determine prices.

Hitler put the means of production under state control, more or less. Generally speaking the private industry leaders who ran the companies before hand, were left to run it under the auspices of the Government.

Communism is state controlled means of production + command economy.

The Reich was not "Capitalist".

...

And they don't give a shit what you think either.

Also this.

Exactly.

Communism is the end goal of socialism, which means there's no state.

In socialism society, there would be no market in the first place, since the market creates commodities and capitals.

You're joking, right?

Ever notice how there's a drop in 1936, and a rise again in 1939, then skydive in 1941?

That's the sound of the Nazi economic system falling.

1936 - their bank failed
1939 - WW2 started, they looted shit from Poland France
1941 - they are starting to lose the war

Well, straight from Marx's mouth.

Trump is talking about trade deficits the same way all politicians do. They all lie and pretend they're going to reduce them. Trump knows the game. Reagan was the progenitor of massive ongoing trade surpluses, he did the same thing.

No not at all, simply that the economy should not be seen as the first and primary consideration.
That economics should rightly be subordinated to other more valuable considerations - like your race, land, people, culture and religion.
Economics as a tool, not people as tools of economics.

The problem is that capitalism ceased to be common sense economics (trade, barter, markets, what I earn is mine, etc.) and instead became an entity with a mind of its own (jews) that has acted in a way where its ends justified its means, which means for Capitalists, it's good to have open borders because cheaper labour and bigger population creates a bigger GDP, but that money isn't going down to the population that made it. That is why NS combated Capitalism yet employed some key features that people commonly associate with it. Liberalism corrupted "capitalism" in the same way that Marxism corrupted "socialism."

The amount of capital that new guy has stops him from doing that. Go ahead, invent a better cola, and win on the market, it's so easy to kill the current corps, right?. It's just a theory. Without touch with reality.

it's called MONEY. MONEY get them all the power. You don't need gov as a middle man then, that's all.

Sorry, i missed all the state-owned corporations like Boeing or Lockheed or Microsoft etc, etc. :-). Who owns means of production now, huh?.

As said, it's how the jews got into power.

They are so rich they can buy your race, land, people and culture.

Electric jew told you that?. Good goy.

Why do the nazis keep saying this?

If anything, it was them who tried to co-opt socialism, not vice versa.

The majority of socialists follow the Marxist-scientific socialism doctrine.

Does anyone else see how democracy and socialism completely destroy productivity and prosperity?

Before anyone buts in with "Hitler was socialist!" he was also a dictator. Can you truly say you own something if you can't govern how it is used? No. You don't own shit under socialism, you're awarded things by the state. Hitler just happened to be a pretty cool bro who awarded things based on merit and nationality, and not minority status.

It's actually my experience from working and the fact I do own some private properties.

But of course, the Jew Book makes you think you can own everything under socialism.

National Socialism is Socialism in the National frame. You can't have Nationalism without Socialism and it was the kikes who divorced Socialism from Nationalism.

What numbers have to do with corruption of an idea ?

All you did was state that the idea was indeed successfully corrupted.

Thats not free market capitalism and all the problems you have mentioned are a result of the state. Capitalism is simply trade.

That would not be happening if the government didn't tax companies to the point that they need to hire people who are not registered citizens to enable them to make a profit.

Its the minimum wage that is instituted by the state that forces the cost of labor to the point that a company has to move its operation to a third world shit hole to make a profit.

Its the subversive influence of kikes supported by the state through Israel, politics and media that is the driving force toward globalism today.

None of this is a result of a system that hasn't existed since the late 1800's and has never really existed out side of a couple isolated regions throughout history.

Socialism wasn't a part of the party logo until Hitler thought he needed the socialist voting base.

I state that the original idea is a corrupted one, not that anyone needs to fucking try to corrupt it.

It's you who imply that socialism is originally noble.

Honestly i can kind of agree

Capitalism has raised the living standard, brought us endless goods, phones, computer, the internet and computer varg made that video on

But on the other hand, it made men into pussies, and it also made people fatter

Each ideology has its own down sides, but id rather support the one that raised the living raises and created cheap easy free products, than the one that lead to the death of 150 million

To be fair, some of Holla Forums are so desperate for white birth rate now that they think the fact they are white means they deserve gibsmedat.

lol what, carl marx was a jew, adam smith was not a jew

...

How do you know he isn't genuine? I don't think he's some great white saviour like most people here seem to think so, but won't he at least try the stuff he talks about?

Marxism is not the original form of socialism.

yes… and this is why you subordinate economics to these things.

No foreign hostile tribe buying property or controlling your banks when your value system ensures that the state will intervene to ensure that this does not happen.

wut.jpg

You're the one posting videos of an e-celeb, you fucking faggot

Varg is a slightly less bluepilled retard.

He's been edgy since the start, burning down historic churches that were heavily a part of his people's culture for thousands of years, but never once dared to touched a mosque or synagogue.

He stabbed a man to death over financial and power disputes within his record, and got sent to prison like some degenerate. His wife isn't even Norwegian, she's French.

He's just some LARPagan edgelord who is only slightly redpilled about how society is degenerate but goes about it the wrong way.

Socialism at the beginning is a society where everyone owns the means of production.

Marx evaluates this to the idea of a state-less society where everyone owns the means of production.

Nazi does not even come close to this, their "socialism" means traditional Prussian virtues, which have nothing to do with socialism at all.

Since there's no capital, no commodity, every production is made exactly to give people for their exact need, there would be no trading nor any need for a market.

And if the jews buy the state?

this doesn't happen either.

It has happened, see Britain's banking system.

Can someone tl'dr me on this guy? I see him posted everywhere but I never bothered to watch anything he does (whatever that is) because I expected him to be just another liberal cuck that's pretending to be right-wing. You know, like that Milo faggot.

*tl;dr

You are confusing the current system with a free market one. If someone were to invent a truly better cola then they cold use different techniques to market it. Techniques that would be unavailable to the larger companies as they are to large to adapt quickly to changing market trends. Stop confusing our current system with that of a free market the two are at complete odds with one another.

Explain how without a monopoly a company would grow to such a large state so as to have a significant ability to manipulate a market with its capital? If a company is manufacturing a good that has a very high demand other companies will spring up to meet such a demand limiting the growth and potential market control any one company has.

You complete lack of any education in economics is very obvious.

Those companies exist solely as a result of monopolies granted to them by the state through patent, copy right laws and the need of the state to have a large military. NONE of those things would exist in a free market. You examples are completely invalid.

Please if you are going to argue this point at least give me a bit of a challenge this is like arguing with a child.

Reagan talked the same game, then didn't stick to it. My bet is he will be just like Reagan because that is what's most beneficial for America. But like Reagan he has to talk as if he'll reduce it because most people don't understand America's special status and you don't exactly want to point it out to people (vid related). He can still build a wall, deport Mexicans, block Muslims, etc. But when you can print massive amount of money and pay for shit with it, and the rest of the world accepts it you don't give that up. Especially not when the world is becoming deflationary and needs more money.

you haven't been reading the evola quote, nor have you been understanding my posts.

well, whatever. you're retarded.

You are talking about a fantasy reality where a poor country can somehow intervene and stop the globalists's meddling in their own country.

And you tell me I'm retarded.

You are once again acting as if Marx created socialism.

He didn't.

National socialism means the subjugation of the economy to the interests of the people.

Which is closer to original socialist idea than the delusional ideas of world-wide class war Marx had thanks to his irrational Jewish revolutionary spirit.

No, that is simply free trade in action. Why would they stay here when they can make more money moving their factories to where wages are 1$ a day? You simply cannot compete with that kind of labor.

Open borders = inflated workforce = lower wages. It's that simple. If they are able to do it, they will do it, doesn't matter how much profit they are making, a good company will always seek to maximize it.

this is exactly what the axis countries did… and why ww2 occurred.

this society and value system is literally that threatening to the current order.

not a fantasy, friend. already been tried successfully…. and destroyed in war.

our job is to try it again and ensure that it is not destroyed.

This shouldnt surprise anyone. The "blue" countries had capitalism, which created more money which in turn created welfare.

The more welfare you have, the lazier and apathetic the population get. The red countries however didnt develop as much welfare as the blue did, thats why theyre uncucked.

I seriously believe that if you just get rid of the welfare programs in all the blue countries, we be uncucked in weeks, maybe just days. Thats why, I as a swede, actually hope that we get overruned by immigrants this summer too. Thats the only way I see the system crash.

Have you any idea how much influence have these huge corporations on the government in a Capitalist society?
They are making huge profits out of everything you just stated.

This one's a beauty. Yeah, those poor companies are forced to move to third world countries so they can even make a profit.

Again with this "Capitalism no longer exists meme". It's similar to "muh true communism has never been tried". The whole point of Capitalism is to produce as much as you can for the lowest cost and this leads to Globalism and all of the problems you stated above.

This is true, that's why I think the term National Socialism is redundant and it should be called just Nationalism. My point still stands though, Nationalism is a collective ideology with class cooperation philosophy and thus has Socialist elements in it.

Marx didn't create socialism, but he followed and evaluated the original ideal that was socialism.

Which is why there are still corporations exploiting the workforce in Nazi Germany. Hitler just let people he didn't like (the undesirables) to become slaves for the corporations.
Socialism means for all people, jews, gays and niggers included.

The axis countries cannot compete, started war and got their shit wrecked.

They were not in anyway "successful".

A rich country with bigger population and logistics will destroy a poorer country, what you want isn't logically possible.

Lithuanian here.

Yeah, we have little cuckery, but in exchange we're poor as shit.

The Japanese approach is the best
First world prosperity and minimum first world bullshit.

Socialism is a class struggle (war against the bourgeois), not class collaboration.

Holy shit, where does these "socialists" come from?

THE USSR NEVER DIED

Russia is a shitty veil covering th still existing USSR.

The shit in the west is still pushed by the USSR of last century. It's still pushed by the Bolshevik USSR and the USSR jews.

Reminder: it's JEWtin for a reason. He adores jews.

This is Marxist Socialism. As I've stated before, the kikes divorced Socialism from Nationalism. Class cooperation is a form of Socialism and its the core philosophy of Fascist ideologies.

This nigger gets it. Japan is the destroyer of all anti-capitalist fags. They do massive volumes of international trade, their corporations are household names and they are almost completely homogeneous.

Sure Hentai is allowed but on the scale of things they're cuck free.

Shipping, low quality production, extensive travel, ire from your home country for not employing your country men are just a few examples of why a business man would not move his company to a third wold country not to mention the cost of moving such an operation. You and many people seem to think business owners are all basically like Mr. Burns when the reality is it couldn't be further from the truth. A business man goes into business to make money. They do not get into business to provide jobs to their country men at any costs to themselves. Profit is essential to any business without it, the business ceases to exist. When you raise the minimum wage and taxes to such a high level that a company can not provide local jobs and still make a profit mot companies shut down. The exception being those companies that find, at great expense, ways around the extreme costs of operating a business in a heavy tax environment. Doesn't the fact that large companies move their operations to less taxed countries give you some hint that the taxes in your own may be to high?

I don't see your point. In a free market property lines and the discretion of the owners of said properties would define who is able to come onto their properties. Also in a free market there is no welfare system to entice third worlders to parasite off of your economy. They would produce or they would die as simple as that and much more in line with how America use to work before the welfare state.

Big corporations not only can spend thousands times more on marketing, they can buy all marketing avenues, use dumping, bribe every seller everywhere. You make up stuff to make 0.0003% chance of something as a done deal.

It's the winner of the free market. Next year noone starts from zero, the winner uses his winnings to run away forward from the competitors. And it ends with monopoly. There is no magic, bigger capital wins. And gets bigger every turn.

All things that you said got implemented because corps paid gov people, and still pay to close markets to anyone else.

Do you have any contact with reality?.

You are inventing a noble socialism.

The original definition has always been the public or democratic control of the means of production.
It has jackshit to do with nationalism.

Yes.

Actually, Hitler got to power precisely because a sizeable mass of the people lost their right "to be exploited" by those corporations.

What.

PFFFHAHAHAHAHA.

Robert Owen's New Hamony was 100% white, one visitor even stated "It like being in a German village" while passing though the town.

After he's elected, they are still exploited by the corporations.
Forget the concentration camps now?
Because the undesirables were put into camp, this goes against socialism, which is meant for all people, not just white.

I'm not inventing anything, the "original definition" from kikepedia is because the Communists won. If you don't see Socialist elements in Fascism or National Socialism, you don't have a clue about the subject. Class cooperation is a Socialist philosophy and its the core of Fascist ideology.

It has everything to do with Nationalism. Nationalism is a collective ideology. You serve in the interests of your Nation as a collective group.

If there is ITS NOT A FREE MARKET! I don't care how much you wish there was a government in a free market there is none. These corporations you are talking about only arise in a statist system not in a FREE MARKET one.

I am not defending the current system because the current system is anything but a free market. Now should i define free market so you can understand?

A free market is a system of trade without the influence of government on any aspect of said market. Meaning no laws, no money manipulation, no tariffs, no taxes, no corporations.

Yes they are….so your argument is to repeat mine without providing a counter argument? Why the fuck are you engaging in this interaction? Move along and go shitpost in another thread the men are having a economic discussion.

Thats not capitalism and unlike muh no true communism/socialism true capitalism can be defined as a free market which I defined earlier in the post. Why don't you make some arguments for your system rather than just displaying your ignorance of any thing economic.

so i'm guessing this is a raid from leftypol, since you're autistically responding to everyone in the thread with obvious demoralization..

the axis lost because it was outnumbered, yes. this says nothing to the viability of nationalism as an antidote to the globalist infection.
i can just as easily say that when every nation is nationalist, glabalism has no prospects.

the solution here is to ensure that the nationalists of the present and future are not outnumbered. and this is done through the culture war which we are engaged in here.

nationalism is becoming mainstream, whether you like it or not. and this system is not sustainable. in 10 years everything will have drastically changed.

And where is your proof?

Wikipedia got proof dating from Antiquity.

Fascism was invented by the romans, and it didn't have shit to with socialism.

…so ?

You realize mass forced labor as only used at the end of the war, right ?

Dude what.

I have nothing against nationalism, just that socialism is retarded and the anti-capitalist people here are falling right for the socialsts and communists propaganda.

When you play into their hands, your countries would be poor and powerless.

youtube.com/watch?v=0o2eKaELGMY

So it's not socialism.
No, the jews and gays and other undesirables were put into concentration camps before the war even started, their wealth confisticated. You can argue the gas chamber, but this much is known.
Do you understand socialism?

… so get in the hands of international (((financiers))), you'll be better. Either you control means of production, or you're a slave.

Cuck. Poor/middle class are a big majority, and they should own everything. Not a few rich.

...

You never control the means of production under socialism.

It's the state that do.

Cry cucks all you want, but it's you who will be a cuck under socialism.

Socialism is an internationalism phenomone, not just any nation's workers, but ALL workers.

And that's exactly how it all started you dumb faggot. You really can't connect the dots from that to Globalist agenda?

Thanks for admitting you don't even understand the problems of our time.

My proof is in definition of Nationalism. Any collectivist ideology has Socialist elements in it. If Fascist class cooperation philosophy doesn't equal class struggle of Marxist Socialism that doesn't mean it's not a Socialist philosophy.

Uh, internationalism is also a collectivist ideology.

This doesn't mean that socialism is inherently good in either system.

That is correct.

Socialism can only be a part of a certain ideology and cannot stand on its own. It depends in what way you use it I suppose. Fascism and National Socialism worked great historically. Communism on the other hand, was shit.

You are the state. Not now, with oligarchs, but with means of production in your hands - you are.

You won't tho. Never. Ever. Ever.

I liked his earlier music, but some of his beliefs are retarted, like how gingers aren't white

Funny considering I already own some private properties.

You call me a cuck but you think you can never be an oligarch.

In what way? You vote for the state, but the state controls and regulates the market, and you in return.

you haven't explained to me how removing hostile foreigners from position of power and influence within the state, and ensuring that the states citizens act in the interest of the state as a whole, rather than foreigners… is not a better way of organising a society. Other than saying that le ebil globalists will bully the lone nation, which is a separate issue and dependant on the perquisite that the nation in question is, in fact alone.
Given that the original Evola quote was discussing the placement of economics as paramount in a society thus leading to the destructive capitalist/socialist mix that we have today. He was saying that ordering your priorities in such a way as that foreigners are imported to work as manual labour while at the same time jobs are outsourced overseas - is placing economic factors above the interests of the nation/people/etc. In the same way the socialist way of simply giving jobs, welfare, homes, etc to non-citizens is also acting against the interest of the nation.

you don't seem to have anything to say to this.

What? Socialism is its own ideology, the socialists have never needed to say "international socialism" because everyone understand that it's supposed to be internationalist.
Mercantilism and capitalism surpassed all of them.

It's not a better way because your society does not exist in a vacuum.

If you fuck with foreigners, the foreigners will team up and fuck you up, and they will win because they got the numbers.

So a compromise must be made, do not suck the foreigner's dick but do not cut their dick's either.

If the globalist agenda is one without a state where free trade is the norm I really don't see the problem. If your local group of people want to set up a boarder to surround your private property who am I to stop you? As long as I am not forced to pay for other peoples welfare, taxes, military, health care, schooling, ect I am happy. Why the fuck should I pay for a bunch of welfare queens who cant produce any value of their own? Fuck them if they want to live they need to contribute and a state only subsidizes their existence while taxing my own.

You have not stated what you think the problems are. I am not just going to agree with you if you don't make an argument for, why I should? In this exchange the only thing I have learned about you is that you have very little economic understanding, do not understand what free market means and are belligerent to those who you think you disagree with.

Make some fucking arguments or fuck off I'm not interested in the opinions of children who are unable to formulate arguments.

Me too. You think mine or yours capital matters when we deal with people that have worldwide monopolies?. We are a small fish and that's it. The (((financiers))) are getting 400 billions every year just on usury, not to mention profits from delivering services to every other part of this pie. Go, fight it.

Damn it Holla Forums that the commies were persistently subverting the west while the west didn't subvert the commies is basic knowledge.

Lol, no shit commie countries aren't taking mudslimes and niggers, that's the tactic they used to destroy Western countries! Read the Naked Communist, or read the 45 goals of Communism to destroy America.

Blaming capitalism for social programs imposed by socialists makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever.

Oh and by the way, we don't have a free market, Western Europe doesn't have a free market. We have the pseudo-capitalistic society with a shit load of regulations, that's not a free market, that's socialism-lite.

co-operation can occur without harming the state or the states self-interest. this is a non-issue.
foreign policy has been going on since humanity first started forming organized societies.

they'll figure it out one way or another. without destroying themselves.

I don't fight it, I'm content with what I have right now.

You are the greediest one of all, and you want everyone to own nothing and the state hoards everything for an absolute.

Traditions and values are all fine, but if those traditions interfere with practical things like putting food on the table then we must ask ourselves if they are really necessary.

Rome became Christian when the average Roman was praying to a rediculous amount of Gods. For example, just to walk through a door meant first honouring the God of the doorknob, then, as it swung open, the God of the door itself, and as one walked through the door, it was proper to give a shoutout to the God of the doorframe.

Varg is a well intentioned madman. His ideal society would be frozen in the year 32,000 BCE, and that would make those people vulnerable to nations or entities that cling to technology, such as chaina or russia, or Google.

This video is kinda good and kinda bad
His Consequential Analysis are good, but the Causational, not.
It was not Capitalism alone that destructed the West, but Kike Propaganda and Brainwashing.
Just look at the Soviet Block. They already had their those of Kike Propaganda and Brainwashing in the past, but now are reverting to Traditionalism.
In the end, Eastern Europe is just ahead of us in a perspective timeline, not in another one.
Also, the Economic Collapse has its causes in the Debt Money system and in Kike Manipulation.

A non-issue, a non-issue that destroyed the so-great "fascist" states.

Wake the fuck up. Humanity hasn't known peace since their existence.

Everyone owns everything. You're still not getting it, it's not dictatorship with socialism, it's democracy with socialism. It ruins your view of socialism, so you're sticking with "state is not people".

Great, then don't worry, no one cares about you. Socialism takes care of the real rich, not small fish like you.

They seem to have no problem transporting chinese goods. The extra profit will cover it

And yet the goods sell just fine. Iphones seem to be doing just fine on quality too.

The extra profit will cover this too

Unless a significant amount people start boycotting foreign goods and it affects sales, no CEO will give one fuck how the people feel

You mean tax havens where they can avoid taxes altogether?

Literally my point. Profit is the top priority, even if it means selling out the country for extra shekels.

Except companies are mostly avoiding both. You seem to think that a company needs to pay people 5$ a day and have no taxes just to be able to turn a profit. If there truly exists such a terrible company, then it deserves to go bankrupt as part of natural selection.

Living in a first world country is reason enough. I just wish the minimum wage would be discarded for real so everyone could see just how bad everything is. Instead of having 20% real unemployment and severe difficulty getting hired you would have the lower manual labour class all being paid somewhere between 2-4$ an hour with the rest of the third world still flooding in because it is still better than living in their shithole country. And not allowing subhumans on your property still doesn't mean jack shit when they are poor and want to take your shit. Burglaries, muggings, murders will become the norm, and just like right now, only the affluent will be able to move out somewhere else. Welfare is what keeps the niggers from going full South Africa.

… and back to this again. you're just arguing in circles.

Again, ensure the nationalists are not outnumbered, or that there nation is strong enough that a war would mean mutually assured destruction. which means nukes.

Your argument is not disproving the effectiveness of a nationalist state, you're just saying that it will be ganged up on. You're a bit simplistic.

Oh right right, like Venezuela! Man, they're doing amazingly right now, with their Democratic Socialism, wait…

Everyone owns everything means no one owns anything, because everything is shared.
Democracy means a bureaucrat, and that bureaucrat rules over you. You can be a part of that bureaucrat, sure, but the bureaucrat is bigger than you.
In what way is state the people?
That's hot historically accurate, it's the petit bourgs that got chopped first in a "socialist" revolution.

Switzerland is a free market country with a limited participatory democracy where in the people have the ability to hold referendums as often as they want.
Switzerland has extremely high average personal incomes and a high standard of living, they are proud of their heritage and allow none to beat them down over their success.

This proves to me that a relatively small country with very little actual military might, with as close to free markets as possible and is capable of exporting more than importing without requiring massive tariffs is possible. Its practically the libertarian dream society and its incredibly successful.

Jewish and globalist subversion is the reason the other euros can't have this.

How am I arguing in circle?

You were dismissing one of the most important aspect, foreign policy, as a non-issue.
They will get outnumbered by those who play nicer than them.
So the nukes would keep the peace, until something disable the nukes.
It's simple because it's what happened. You are making up fantasy where everything plays out exactly like you planned.

You never break into a competitive market by going head to head with the biggest player. That's the kind of thing a nigger or poly-sci major would do, then they'd bitch about how evil whitey/capitalism is unfair. The correct way to break into a market is to develop and provide a niche product or service. Something innovative enough that a large enough group of consumers would be interested. If you're a farmer and MondoCorp Farms is growing 3 million acres of sweet corn, you'd be be a fool to grow sweet corn. They would beat you through economy of scale and sell cheaper than you could afford, benefiting the consumer. You would do much better by growing a high value niche crop that people think are interesting, tasty, healthy, etc. Finger limes for example. If the market grows, you now have the opportunity to expand and create your own market space. Could the big guy get in the game? Sure, but from experience, these large companies and their shareholders want tried and true results. They don't want to risk or innovate.

Or, you know, you could advocate for socialism and leech off of producers to maintain your NEET lifestyle.

The second you get big enough for the monopoly to notice you, they will simply buy you at some point, keeping the monopoly, or simply throw thousand times more capital on the same thing you do. Or sue you for some bullshit and you're dead only on pre-trial legal costs.

You only have theory and wishful thinking.

Yeah, its like you want to become a boxer so you buy some second hand gloves and hop into the ring with the world heavyweight champ. Then you run to referee when you get your ass kicked to have him steal one of his arms to give it to you.

woah, I thought we were talking free market capitalism here.

We have cases where monopolies were broken off before.

It has always been a range of political systems.

That's because International Socialism became the "mainstream" meaning of Socialism after ww2.

I don't think so, Fascism and National Socialism handled economic crisis of 1930's way better than any other. They were such an economic threat to the international finance that Capitalism teamed up with Communistm or rather, Bolshevik Jews teamed up with Zionist Jews so they could destroy them.
That's why people say that both Communism and Capitalism are a different side of the same shekel.

Also, I feel like this whole topic is outdated, we should be focusing on Globalism vs Nationalism and how to make a counterweight ideology to the Globalist agenda.

America was based as fuck during the cold war.

It was until the commies subverted the US and fucked up everything in the 60s.

McCarthy did nothing wrong.

You do know that America abandoned capitalism before the first world war right? That the economy had massive government intervention?

That isn't inherently nationalistic.
International socialism got back by proof dating from antiquity, fascism itself has nothing to do with socialism back then.
Uh, capitalism turned island medieval nation (Britain) into the strongest state on Earth at one point.
Never forget the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, everyone thought back then that the nazi would side with the commies to beat the capitalists, so the capitalists have to step in to break the alliance. The nazis were the weaker horse and it attacked both sides so it makes sense capitalists and communists teamed up.

This times 100.

Yeah, no. Everything is upside down in your thinking.

…on behalf of corporations owned by a few rich. Clinton doesn't own banks, banks own Clinton.

You are not splitting, you are saying everyone own the apple.
You don't create the rules, the people do. You are just part of it.
You don't hire a manager, it's the people who elect the manager, and the manager in turn dictates what the people should do.
Because the big ones leave well before you are able to do shit, leaving you with the smaller ones.
It's what happened in every "socialist" revolution, you just think yours is special.

you're arguing in a circle because you're returning to points i already answered. but you know that.

it's a non-issue because any state is capable of organizing a foreign policy without replacing its population with foreigners or exporting its jobs overseas, or similar actions. I've been over this already.
Any state is capable of doing this, other than a state which puts economics or the economic interest of individuals above the nation/people/itself.

you incentivize co-operation with diplomacy. you offer trade deals or other alliances without harming your nation.

if that fails, then you are in a state of cold war; then you sponsor nationalist parties/terrorists to disrupt them and turn them into allies, assassinate them. or you nuke them. or you team up with your nationalist pals and you stomp them.
you can act in your own self interest and ensure that your rivals will fail.

i disable their disabler.

you're making up a fantasy where the circumstances leading up to ww2 and the way in which ww2 played out, repeat exactly.
that's not an argument.

No, you haven't. Organizing a foreign policy =/= organizing a good foreign policy that pleases the foreigners.
The ones who offer better deal (i.e selling out) will have better allies than you.
They can do the same to you, except they have more money, more people to their cause and they have more nukes than you.
Or they team up and stomp you.
Or they can team up and you fail instead.
In what way?
A fantasy does not happen, WW2 happened, so it's not a fantasy.
It is because that's what the WW2 fascist states faced, when you chose to isolate yourselves, you are gonna get gang-raped.

Suing? Lawsuits? Legal restrictions? I thought we were discussion free markets. Figure out what it is you're talking about. And yet even with the current red tape we put up with, small family-ran companies continue to grow and pop up. That's the reality you're trying to ignore. My family started off with absolutely nothing and lived in a trailer, yet through smart business decisions and proper investments, they picked themselves up to a comfortable upper middle class position and and was able to afford me afford education. Now I intend on utilizing it and running my own successful venture better than the older one. You need to drop that defeatist attitude, man. It's not healthy healthy and you won't go anywhere with it.

...

And can take a bite. You know what sharing means?. The object doesn't disappear if it's shared.

"the people" category includes me.

Yes, as an organizer, not owner that gets all the profits for himself.

Their wealth, or at least the part that matters, stays. No one takes buildings with them.

Socialists/communists usually destroyed feudal systems. Again, not you.

Chinese goods are horrible in quality compared to anything manufactured to higher standards in western countries. Just because you have little experience in using western manufactured goods doesn't mean that there is not a significant difference in their quality.

They sell fine because there is little to no competition. The Chinese goods are so cheap no western manufacturing base can compete. You only think iphones are good because there is little alternative mainly due to the high manufacturing costs of producing such products in the western world. Not to mention there has been little to no increase in functionality of said phones since the iphone 4s released 5 years ago. If there were competition brought on by lower manufacturing and production costs the amount of innovation would sky rocket not to mention the monopoly's held by apple would cease to exist in a free market enabling others to compete in the market.

>The extra profit will cover this too

Those extra profits would be off set by the low cost of manufacturing and production in the west if there was a true free market. It would make little sense to ship your operation to the third wold if you could manufacture your products at home for a comparable cost.

In a market with a high competition and many choices for consumers every aspect of your companies image will be very important. If a rival company can get leverage over your company by pointing out a short coming in you companies ethics consumers will move to their products. High competition keeps a company in line as profits become harder and harder to acquire. The CEO's now a days do not care because they hold virtual monopolies enabled by the state.

Tax havens and low cost manufacturing bases are different things user. Where companies and individuals store their money and where they manufacture their goods tend to be very different economies. Why the fuck should your success be taxed away in the first place? Sounds like some real commie thinking i.e. to each according to their need, from each according to their ability to pay.

Just because you see yourself as not making enough money to qualify as rich doesn't mean you ideas about taxing the rich are correct.

If my country thinks my success in the market is something to be punished, by taxing my income to pay for the poor and useless masses, fuck my country. If my country wants to reward my success by allowing me to keep my income I will be much more willing to contribute to it in the form of charity. Its like you think charity has to be compulsory or something.

(1/2)

requesting the video of Moly dealing with that cuck from a few days ago.

Raising some felon's kid and all.

(2/2)

yeah no shit why the fuck should someone have the right to tell me what I do with my property?

You seem to be under the impression that those are the only things companies need to deal with. Within this statist economy you need to pay minimum wage, provide benefits, not discriminate when hiring, provide sick leave, provide union benefits, provide corporate taxes, provide health care provide mandated wage increases, provide unreasonable evidence to terminate, provide regular government inspections the list goes on. This is not just a matter of providing a litle bit of tax and a fair wage companies not a days in the west need to jump through so many hoops to comply with the ridiculous tax code on to of trying to compete in a market, increasing production, expanding business and just running the business. It makes it terribly ineffective for a business to keep up with all the mandatory laws governing them that most businesses either shut down, are incentivised not to grow or need to use government monopolies to exist.

Why do you think the first world is the first world?

In a free market you would have private defense agencies and a high presence of firearms. People would not steal your shit because they know you could be packing heat. If they choose to gang up and become raiders how long do you think they would last before a community or individual paid a defense agency to eliminate the problem?

Welfare is what keeps niggers in their current state of mass unemployment, fatherlessness and violence. If they had to compete in a market they would find non violent ways of interacting or be taken out or ostracized out of the community.

Your country was subverted in 1933 by kikes. That's when you lost control over your own destiny as a nation.

Are you sure Capitalism didn't die in 1800s? Because that's what one user is claiming here.

And who caused that massive "government" intervention? It's what happens in Capitalist societies, in time huge capitalists will start influencing the government in their benefit.

Are you acting retarded on purpose? What has this got to do with Nationalism? You can just re-read my previous posts instead of starting the same conversation over again if that's what you want.

Again, the same thing I explained countless times already. This is why you have so many posts ITT.

It wasn't exactly from medieval times, but ok. I'm not arguing against the golden age of Capitalism, it was perfect for colonial times. What I'm saying is that in 20th century politics, Fascism and National Socialism were the strongest political systems with the best economic results and the only ones who
proposed beneficial solutions to the post-industrial era.

See, even other people are telling you that you're going in circles lol:

Anyway, I'm done explaining the same shit over and over, so don't bother replying.

If everyone takes a bite, the apple would indeed disappear. It doesn't take everyone either, just a majority.
The point is it's not just you, so you aren't the people, you might not even share the decision with the people if you are a minority.
Said organizer would rule over you and make decision for you. He can indeed get all the profits for himself, since he's the leader now.
They can take the money with them, and run to other countries and start their business again.
They don't need the building.
Not true, look at Russia, look at Cuba, look at Vietnam, they all killed and robbed the petit bourgeois.

I'd argue it was subverted in 1914 with Woodrow Wilson, but regardless, the 60s is when it really ramped up.

I thought we discuss reality, not "free market" theory. They pop up and disappear because of big players, usually just being their bitch subcontractor anyway. Dream more, i'll stay in reality. Just because you can have a success on a small scale, for example by building a business that gets bought by a bigger one, the bigger one still stays in power. The same capital, the same families for generations.

It's to say it's you nationalists who co-opt socialism, and not vice versa. There's nothing inherently nationalistic about socialism
You haven't explained shit but say duh marxists win WW2 so they rewrote history. You got no proof. Nada.
Both communism and capitalism outpaced naziism in every facets, so no, you aren't right.

You haven't explained shit.

History has plenty of young entrepreneurs who started from nothing for you to look up too.

inb4 but they not the real rich lol

I fail to see what you're even trying to accomplish, Holla Forums. My family has been in business for accomplish quarter of a century and shows no signs of slowing down. You don't need to be the biggest to a be a flourishing success. Why are you so bothered by other businesses making more money than you? Is it an autistic desire to put all your blocks in a row but can't because someone else owns some of the pieces?

For a quarter of*

Yes, because everyone used it up. It didn't disappear because "if everyone own something, then noone does, so we share the apple - we can't eat it".

The majority is. Still better than one guy feudal lord/oligarch. Democracy is still the best system there is.

You can fire or imprison him. Organizer is not a dictator, really. Obama won't take half of US Treasury with him.

That too, not the first ones though. And not the "i have a house, i'm rich" guys.

Shhh, it's because he never amounts to shit and knows of it.

So he wants everybody's wealth.

Yes, in fact I have. You're just making up thoughtless bullshit on the fly. Tell me why russia would be opposed to the nationalist trump being elected.
I offer their traitors money to betray them.
Who are "they" exactly? The jewish banks, the soviet union, britain, france and usa? Your thinking is anachronistic at best.
The way things are going in the modern world, we already have a nationalist eastern europe struggling to extricate itself from a dying EU, we have trump going to get elected in the US, we have britain, france who are going to be controlled by muslims in the near future (therefore out of the picture) and we have germany who will either follow them or elect its own trump.
so who are the people ganging up on us again? russia, china? don't think they care.
or they don't because they have no reason to.
see above.
i use the opposite version of the magic technology used to disable my nukes. checkmate.
the world in the present is not the world of 70 years ago. you're rping a fantasy where le evil nazis are all running around in jackboots ready to die in the eastern front. it's not the way the world is at present.
see? you can't extricate your mind from this paradigm. kinda sad really.

With just small loans, from family or (((my people)))?. Try to become a property magnate from a minimal or even average wage. Or create new facebook, go ahead, it's so easy, 20yo do it, lol.

LMAO

If no one eat it, it wouldn't disappear, but if everyone it at the same time? It would go in one second and the next, everyone starve. This is not to mention the debate between who "owns" the apple more, and who simply eats it first.
So it's better to be gang-raped than to be fucked by one guy.
Obama already plunges the US treasury into trillions of debt, and you can't fire or imprison him. In fact, I don't think you can do shit to him.
What? The "proles" kill the petit bourgs to get their houses, they didn't have jackshit, a house alone is precious to them.

Elon Musk did it with his fucking brother.

Stop being a cunt and get a job.

And they have the death penalty which in theory enables them to remove those 15 if they have committed bad enough crimes, if need be.

Varg is wrong here. The modern cuck nations correlate with the cold war capitalist nations because they were the ones targeted by hidden communist propaganda aimed at destroying nations, while the formerly commie nations only got overt propaganda designed to make them think capitalists were le piggy man.

If Varg honestly genuinely believes that communism would be better for nations than capitalism, he should consider that communism calls for a worldwide revolution resulting in a world without borders, the destruction of all religions including his little LARP-fest, an understanding that race is totally irrelevant, and for nobody to strive to be better. He should also consider that capitalism evolved naturally in White societies before anyone theorized on it and before kikes hijacked it, while communism was simply made up one day by two NEET kikes.

Now if he were to simply argue that pure capitalism, or in our case kike-hijacked pretend capitalism, is a system that's harmful to the existence of races, I'd agree. But the reason why western Europe is more cucked than eastern Europe is not directly caused by the economic systems they used; it's caused by the methods the two superpowers used to subvert one another. The US just got the communist citizens to believe that capitalism led to more material wealth, while the USSR led the capitalist citizens to believe that race and nation are evil oppressive shitlord stuff.

There's a great quote from Gottfried Feder that I think applies here:
>On the surface, the Marnmonistic Anglo-American coalition has without a doubt been initially victorious. As a reaction against it, Bolshevism arose in the East, and if one wishes to see a great idea in Bolshevism, it is without a doubt the position diametrically opposed to the Marnmonistic worldview. The methods that Bolshevism seeks to employ for this however are the botched cures of a Dr. Eisenbarth. They are the attempt to help someone sick from internal poisoning with a scalpel, by amputating his head, arm, and legs.

Yeah that's when it all started, but in 1933 they got almost absolute financial and political power, by engineered financial crisis, or in other words, they took over the head and mind of the country.

Russia wouldn't, but Russia isn't the world, there's still the EU, China, and the rest of the world that depend on American consumer base.
The international trading company, if USA opts out, they all suffer.
China, the EU and the oil barons in the Middle east, Mexico and the ragtag from South America.
They have a reason too, China needs that American consumer base, Mexico govt needs NAFTA.
What? A technology can exist to disable nukes in form of anti-nuke missile battery, how would you disable these?
The world at the present is even more interconnected than before due to technological advancement.
It's simply reality.

...

That's a lie. Socialism doesn't eliminate kickbacks, perks, or power from the top.

We have actual communists who blame everything on oligarchs here and believe social democracy is the best there is.

I'm not disagreeing, FDR was a fucking commie faggot. Stupid crippled kike.

He's a libertarian from Canada who makes redpilled videos about race, immigration, politics in general. His older videos were very niche and philosophical and self-helpy. These older videos are the most controversial, giving him the reputation of being a "weirdo cult leader" in some circles.

No, he actually believes in what he says and he's not subverting anything like Milo. Notice how he doesn't say he's right or alt-right and tries to change the definition and the core ideologies like Milo. He's an anarchist who uses reason, logic, and evidence to point out flaws in leftist reasoning.

So because of that, he is a race realist, and realizes open borders and DUDE WEED LMAO will not work because spics and niggers have a low IQ and the welfare state will only subsidize.

So calling him a lolberg is not really correct, he's said he is or was back then but his views at the moment do not reflect lolbergtarianism. He does believe in the free market, because there's evidence that the free market works. Look at Chile under Pinochet, look at the US in the 19th century.

Nobody wants, nobody likes KIKES KIKES KIKES

I don't think that everything was hidden commie propaganda. Most of this propaganda works great for Global Capitalists when you think about it. They get cheap labour, produce any crap they want wherever they want.

He just pointed out that Capitalist countries are far more degenerate than ex-Commie ones. It was a video against free-market worshippers. He's against Communism as well.

is there a book of series of books that can explain economic matters to a layman?

He's a Jewish AnCap that spouts alt-right memes in his videos trying to co-opt the movement to push his universalist, pacifist moral system.

He also frequently cries in his videos like Glen Beck and can't go one week without mentioning how Jews are market dominant minorities because they are genetically superior to the goyim.

He also frequently counter-signals fascism by pretending that fascist and national socialist thought are akin to Communism and that the divide between Right and Left is one between Individualists and Collectivists.

Never mind that the difference between a world in which everyone is an individual without membership in any collective like a religion or a race and is just "a human" and a world in which everyone is a part of a single collective of global "just a human" individuals without any membership in a sub-collective are identical positions with only semantic differences.

He's basically another Milo. A Jew trying to divert our energy into being for Libertarianism as the solution to all things. Nevermind that Molyneux's proposed new world order where bourgeouse virtues predominateis actually a phase in Marxist thought which is a precursor to the socialist phase. This is something that Libertarians in general never seem to talk about. That Marx predicts the emergence of Libertarianism as an ideology that takes over the West wherein under the ministrations of Democracy and Capitalism the byproducts of these systems are held up as virtues in and of themselves and humanity's new morals are essentially maximization of comfort and avoidance of the opposite. That is the Liberatarian battle cry of "I just want to be left alone; what's so wrong with that?"

He styles himself a "Philosopher" but the actual school of philosophy that he belongs to is sophistry>>6217955
.

Japan is full of weak faggots who don't deserve to live. And indeed they will die out if they keep the course. Which was Varg's entire point. Japan is a shithole of people dying because they are so obsessed with their own comfort they are afraid of getting icky pussy juice on their dicks.

Fascist economics are basically Mercantilism with reforms based upon Capitalist critiques. Capitalism isn't merely an economic system but is based on a moral philosophy which has first principles that are diametrically opposed to the first principles of Mercantilism which is an inherently nationalist economic system.

There has also never been a Capitalist country on Earth ever, as it is a universalist and really a totalitarian system so if it isn't 100% Capitalist it is 0% Capitalist. The so-called Capitalist age that ushered in all of this economic well-being was a product of Mercantile countries accepting critique on purely economic grounds from Capitalists and making the appropriate reforms without abandoning the first principles of Mercantilism, which is to strengthen the nation.

Capitalists lost the moral argument totally, and have only been able to spread their pernicious ideology over the past century and a half by being totally fanatical and impervious to evidence that would reform their views. They've got the same arguments now, word for word, that they had 150 years ago. The wealth accumulated by the Mercantile-Capitalist hybrid system that totally rejects Capitalism's far left-wing first principles has evaporated under the ministrations of a system that is a hybrid Socialist-Capitalist system which both share the same first principles.

"It's just an economic system" is a lie.

You are arguing with a Turkish homosexual whose only friend is his Asian bottom. He lives in Australia and so is deeply invested in the globalist narrative.

He doesn't realize that his argument justifies pogroms and when confronted on the fact he'll start shitposting about how awesome Jews are and that pogroms are just jealousy by gentiles.

It's not as you explain yourself in your own post. The ability to use capital is restricted by the government. A free market necessarily requires a separation of the economy and the state so that if Switzerland's referendums determine that they don't want massive immigration to suppress wages it wouldn't matter as the liquidity of labor would actually be determined by market forces and not the State. The state having the authority to tell people they can't use their capital to import cheaper workers than are present locally is inherently anti-capitalist. The basis for such a system wherein the state can enforce these restrictions for its' own benefit or the benefit of some perceived collective of people is diametrically opposed to Capitalism.

EU is not long for this world; either it collapses or it's bureaucracy gets replaced with nationalists. China is only aligned against the US and could not realistically expect to fight the US in a war and profit in any way.
If they are faced with a nationalist like trump who is trying to extricate the US from their economic control, then their only choice is to co-operate.
is not worth going to war with US over.
yeah that's not at all specific. jews? a parasite dies without a host.
China and EU already answered. the rest don't matter.
I hack it and turn it off. I pay traitors to turn it off. I build my own battery. whatever. as long as we both have nukes and/or as long as we both have deterrents, it's stalemate.
the world at present is not 1930+40s europe.
It's the past. It's a geopolitical situation that no longer exists. Get with the times.

Yeah I presumed it was something like that.
Oh well, nvm.

youtu.be/iT8Capo9o9M?t=137

Eurpean traditions are pretty nasty to eradicate. It takes about 80% foreigners in a city and it STILL happens. And those fucking invaders adopt the traditions and make them into new stuff.

I think the limit the traditions can survive is below immigration level Germany now has. Germany won't survive what they have to absorb and only in the remotest areas traditions will survive.

I bet Ramadan will be adopted into Carnival and be "problematic" in 500 years again. Fucking Jews. Go away.

Switzerland has 60% foreigners. So fuck off.

So how can the merchants shut down all the bad goys with influence? By astro-turfing this anti- "e-celeb" shit, of course.

I hope somebody murders you, you fucking scumbag

Hear hear!

I'm doing fine, thanks, actually thinking of a retirement already. Job market/economy is not a school where everyone can get an A if they try hard enough. It's a marathon, someone is first, someone last, and winners usually get to the finish line in their parents cars, while you get to run barefoot. Better demand that organizers at least provide you free water, because prize money is out of your reach.

Fly high in the capitalist sky, it will hurt harder when you'll fall.

My opinion is that we should have such a limited govt that democracy isnt even needed. Leftism needs the government to survive

Let's not blame the EUROPEAN COMMISSION and every other leftist bureaucrat.
Let's not blame COMUNISTS & CORRUPT POLITICIANS (like Merkel and Sarkozy)
Let's not blame TAX EXEMPT GLOBALIST FOUNDATIONS (like George Soros's open society foundation)
Let's not blame SHADOWY ORGANIZATIONS that use the above mentioned groups as tools

No, let's blame workers and businesses! It's all their fault for not having submitted to communism 30 years ago.
I lost all respect for this hillbilly moron.

Back to leftypol, Clinically retarded bernie supporter.

This is all clearly this is my fault, because i am going to work and receive a paycheck and my boss would love nothing more than to replace me with a 60 IQ Sandnigger who can't even speak his language and would steal office supplies and shit on the copying machine. Fucking morons.

...

By the way, it's interesting that the mods have bumplocked every single stefan molyneux thread after ~70 replies, while blatantly obvious leftypol threads are still on the frontpage. Kill all the mods and all the faggots

He's not controlled opposition. He's just a Jew doing what Jews do.

Too bad that's against the NAP faggot.

By the way he openly praised Milo on his show this week IIRC in the same episode where he cited "The New Fascist Man" shitting on fascism by making up a component of fascism that doesn't exist, shilling the idea that fascism is opposed to traditional existence.

Where did this idea come from? Well because his own ideology requires the personal adherence to a virtue ethics formula by the masses that essentially requires the creation of a "New Anarchist Man". A critique brought to him specifically by listeners which he never addressed but instead began spreading lies about them because he knows the critique is valid. So he resorted to his usual sophistry of simply inverting the terms.

Let's continue with the Molyneux "philosophy". He advocates that if you encounter someone whose arguments are not capable of being rebutted that you SHUT THEM DOWN. Man, that Jewish blood really works monomaniacally doesn't it, folks?

Well, there isn't any reason you can't blame for submitting to communism today, which they clearly have.

None of the western countries actually have free markets. Notice that all the migrants are going to countries with the biggest socialist benefit systems. The eastern countries got fucked by socialism once already, so they don't want to make the same mistakes again. Our western countries have been becoming more and more socialist since WW2.
In the free market you would have to personally pay for the keep of any migrants you take in. In socialism the costs of migrants are taken from the worker "for their own good".
Academics and women are voting for more migrants, because they aren't carrying the weight of taxation like the workers. Most people that vote against the left are working white men.
Freedom is not destroying Europe, its the Jews, their cuck puppets and useful idiots.

Stefan has a jewish ancestor on the mothers side of the family. He has cut all ties to that family though.

Voting gives people power outside the free market, in democracy a business man and a some rapefugee are equal. In a free market there is no equality. The freedom to buy oats and rye without state intervention does not impose mass migration, but the state does, and the state is chosen by the 51%.

The "nazi" Germany was not only socialist, but a mixed economy. The one thing that made it work was a strong leadership that was dedicated to moral values. I wonder how the nazis would have managed after a few generations.

Trump is not a capitalist, though he is a lot more capitalist than Bernie.

Japan isn't doing that well, lots of suicide and depression, horribly low birth rates.

I've spoken to Varg many times on YT. The guy is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is. Most of his logical thought processes come off as extremely adolescent and bullheaded. I think the fact he was locked up in prison for so long stunted his mental growth. He even procreated with a LITERAL autistic woman. Is autism hereditary? If so, he dun goofed something fierce.

Go back to plebbit lolbertardian, you're a dying breed here.

That is wrong. Socialism means concrete and total redistribution of surpluses by the state or other collectivized forces. Even Marxists still think so today.

Communism is a classless society without money and everything is owned and distributed collectively. How-fuck-ever that may happen.

Europe now is socialist for the middle class. Their surplus is being scrubbed for the underclass and the owner class can live however they want. There is no owner class in communism and a highly regulated owner class in socialism.

The problem is: the underclass now isn't white trash but mudslimes.

In day to day business, god is irrelevant. Culture is lazy time and how it is organized. What do you do the very moment you have Feierabend or weekend? How many days do you have off per year? Americucks don't get that minimum four weeks are essential to produce culture which can't be taken away by jews. "Muh productivity". Yes. But culture gives you incentive beyond your family, state and the next day. That means having a club, having yearly traditions, having meals with extended family, having street festivities, complete lockdown of towns to celebrate something and work your ass off for two days (completely drunk… or stoned…) etc. No god needed for that. Problems arise when the jewtube makes fun of your traditions and you get inundated by brownskins. And women in your associations. They suck at leading traditions.

What is ownership and what are captive markets (like infrastructure)?

Hahahahahaha…. t. Swiss

Found the lolbergtardian kike

Jesus, you sure are fucking stupid

Then what is the difference between socialism and communism?!

doesn't sound like an argument mate

OK, I try it again. Look up market in jewpedia:

That is the distribution of goods.

Socialism is the re-distribution of surplus.

What is your problem?

And yet they are still absolutely destroying our manufacturing base, and have been ever since we enacted free trade

No shit, because you can't pay and no one will even accept china-tier wages, unless you keep inviting the third world until you oversaturate the labor force and the country itself becomes third world.

Go to any electronic store in the phone section and you will see they have a plethora of different phone brands. Apple doesnt have a monopoly, it is simply the most well known. There is already competition, in fact the only reason innovation is slowing down in that sector is because the market is oversaturated, few people need new phones and no one is swayed anymore by more fucking gadgets or apps.

Yeah, instead of putting up tariffs and having a domestic free economy that keeps out destructive foreign competition , lets compete with china instead by importing 6000000000000 mexicans and getting rid of the minimum wage, until manual laborers get paid as much as in mexico itself.

That could work if only most people were intelligent enough or cared enough to boycott certain companies. There are western manufacturing companies that still exist, so why are people not boycotting any chinese goods in favor of them. Or at least not any in any significant number? Because people are just not able to think collectively (you should know this) and will just buy whatever they think is the best bang for their buck, national industry and their livelyhood be damned.

Because every government needs revenue? We back to the Articles of Confederation now?

I was refering to open borders, not taxation.

Yup. Thought this might be an Ancap.
Its not like the govt is just stealing your money. They provide your company fire protection, police protection, they aren't just robbing you. The irony in all of this is that small businesses will be butchered the most by what you are proposing. LOL JUST PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING. The small guys will be the ones not able to afford private guards or have enough manpower to keep robber gangs from looting everything from them.

Whites. East asians. Chile has a relatively free market economy, but compared to the first world, is still a poor shithole. Same applies to Botswana. Every single white country that has not fell to communism is first world, and this is undisputable. A free economy does play a substantial role in development, but ultimately being a first world country comes down to genetics, which you would ruin with open borders.

1/2

So… just like real South Africa? I just can't wait to have to pay people to make sure I don't get murdered or robbed. I am just so eager to live behind steel doors and barred windows, and sleep with a gun under my pillow. Unless I'm rich, that is.

Sure is working very well in America and South Africa.

And what makes you think the raiders can't recruit more people or hire their own mercs to deal with yours with the money they robbed? Maybe you will drive them back, maybe they will kill everyone in your community and take everything for retaliating. Why are you so eager to regress back in the ancient and feudal ages when people still had to deal with this shit?
Peace is only achieved through a overwhelming, undisputable force. As long as there is no central authority and force is divided between several entities, struggle and violence will occur. Take a look at the Pax Romana, take a look at the Pax Mongolica, peace can only occur in a region when there is a monopoly on force, when one force can undisputably crush all the others and can enforce their will unopposed. This is why your shitty anarchistic pipe dream will never work and will always devolve into a newly formed central authority.

What is Sub-Saharan Africa?

Kek

2/2

The banning of classical culture sucked, but for all it's worth, people had secure jobs, stuff was being produced, and for all the bad things, we had 0 national debt by the time Ceausescu was done with the place. Now we're cuking for the dying EURSS and the only thing that only thing that's being built is Shoping Malls (along with the dismantling of all the old industry of course)

The Liberal Welfare State is redistribution. Socialism is different distribution. Now, you can make all the arguments all day long about whether or not it works - that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. The point is, Socialism (as opposed to LibWelSt or SocDem) is decidedly not about redistribution, but about distribution. For example, if the State owns the so-called means of production, then it is simply distributing the product as it sees fit, in similar fashion to the "Bourgeois" property owner.

I hope that makes sense.
citation: any socialist literature ever

but to distribute it has to take from someone else, hence RE

I'm not here to play semantic games. The point is you need to see the difference between Welfare State Liberalism and Socialism.

see

No, it doesn't. Because the point is the State owns it. You playing Jewish games with the word redistribution, and you need to stop

Captialism brings consumerism.
If you picture me as an ugly dumb fat feminist for using the word "consumerism" you know the jew doesn't want you to question it.
This image has been used in American media over and over, questioning consumerism and capitalism is something only ugly fat people do

Capitalism*

knowing english is not jewish word games, rather a lack of knowing english is nigger logic

further, since the state has not existed for eternity, when it comes into being it takes ownership and then doles out what it wants to.
The state did not create what it took ownership of, it took it by force. Then if it distributes it later it must be classified as redistribution.

this. The American consumer exists at the behest of (((The Market))), not vice versa.

You cannot really be this stupid, right?

thats not an argument, bring a counterdefinition if you find this insufficient.

No, you're not getting the point. I can build a hypothetical where the State owns everything, but never "redistributed" anything (to use your pleb definition of redistribution.

The point is that distribution is changing the fundamental rules of the game whereas redistribution is taking product, after it has been produced and distributed under current rules, and shifting that product/purchasing power to another entity. If you don't understand that fundamental difference, then our conversation cannot go anywhere, fam.

i've given you a definition several times, retard. It's not my fault you're too dense to get it.
see

So there is no market, external nor internal in socialism? News to me. They developed four (4!) different network in Russia, while the darpa acted "socialist" and formed one right. Because the Russians had an internal market (of ideas and not a few times for goods).

The point is that socialism is the endgoal of the jewish global elites. Communism would be their death, as they don't have
a) money
b) classes to pitch against each other

and everything would be tightly controlled by hyper local syndicates or urban commissions. Not good.

I think they infected everyone in the 20th century with the thought that communism can only be achieved via socialism (Überbau etc.) just because of that. And no, this isn't semantics. Language shapes thoughts of dumb humans. This is important. Also a Russian told me.

I am for the subversion of markets and the economy to serve the wellbeing of a natural nation, preferably along water sheds, so called natural habitats of dwellers; natural cultural spaces with a common sense and purpose.

Liberal welfare states don't really own anything anymore. Did you sleep through the neoliberal 90ies?! There are only some left - decidedly Germany, Norge and Switzerland - but those who really work there are the lower middle class. And they get milked; all the money flows into the national level and out into welfare.

Look here for more: proservicepublic.ch/index.php?id=72

The 26 mini states in Switzerland own only a few things: Electrical grid, National bank, SBB, Post AG, RuAG.

No ABB, no Novartis, no Zurich FS, no Glencore. We don't decide about distribution of goods. ffs…

Thx for the flak, but fuck off. I know I am bad at English, but those words being basically Latin, I think I can handle it.

Nonsense. How do you ensure there is no surplus of any production mode and process? You're delusional.

does your socialism take place in a land with no factories, no houses, no parks, and no roads?

A market determines prices for the distribution of goods.

Do you contest that?

BTW, I forgot about MIGROS, you dumbfuck Murricans don't know about that. Basically a communist Walmart dominating every distribution of goods in Switzerland:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migros

Revenue 26 Billion CHF, no state involved.

Stopped reading there. That's not the point. Do you or do you not understand what I'm saying?

stopped reading there. this is not about my beliefs or wishes. This is about a basic fundamental - almost ontological - definition, or difference between, Welfare State Liberalism and Socialism.

irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

No, Answer the question does your definition of socialism that you presented and thus you own take place/start in a land with no roads, no factories, no parks, no houses, no power plants and no guns?

Capitalism made western europe wealthy which thus made life easy and allowed feminism and faggotry to thrive.

East europe was socialist whch ruins the economy and makes everyone dirt poor which tends to promote masculinity and strength.

aka r/k theory.

Socialism is owning means of productions, without private "free" market.

Europe now is socialist for the middle class. Their surplus is being scrubbed for the underclass

Well then, explain how the Middle class - WHERE FUCKING CULTURE HAPPENS - feels different in LibdemsocwelfaceEUdSSSSR and Socialism.

Explain!! Explain!!!

right, ks work hard and eventually dismantle the socialist country and create a capitalist society wherein the ease of life creates rs who create a socialist society. An unfortunate circle.

Irrelevant. I'm talking about a fundamental ontological definition of what it is to distribute and what it is to redistribute

Let me sum up the arguments as I see them right now.

Me: Technically, socialism is a different form of distribution - it changes the fundamental rules of the game. Redistribution is performed through Welfare State Liberalism / Social Democracy.
>You: BUT YOU CAN'T GET FROM HERE TO THERE WITHOUT TAKING MY TRUST FUND DADDY GAVE ME WAAA WAAA WAAAA

Capitalism, especially corporate capitalism, is fucking degenerate. It is the epitome of the jew

but italy and the swizz is still ok.

well I'm dirt poor from a dirt poor family so the personal attack not withstanding, the problem is if your definition dissolves upon first contact with reality it is a piss poor definition.

Because cave men can't just start a socialist society because there is nothing to own, it must first start out minimum as some sort of fiefdom type thing until the creation of wealth occurs. Then socialism can be created and take the wealth that has been built by another system. You can't own everything if there is nothing to own.

How do you reign in the consequences of capitalism and reap ongoing benefits without the disasters even Marx himself (and some Antique commentators back then) predicted?

I propose minimum wage just above welfare for the sick, technology control -> especially automation of mundane tasks, eugenics, biology etc. can be automated away for the long term benefit of mankind, limited energy consumption, no do-gooders in brownskin lands, no migration to prop up "growth", right control of soil and land, land value taxation instead of labor taxation and collectivization/tight state control of essential services like infrastructure and (((banking))).

Oh come on… Soc is the redistribution of surplus, because the distribution as is - as there is another mode of distribution of goods - already happened. Fundamental rules of the game are that the means of production are owned by jews in representation instead of banking. You content now? ffs

You dangerously near leftypol bro

Well, if I'm defining socialism I'd hope I sounded similar to scoialists

Consumer capitalism is just a symptom of the disease that is individualism.

No. No, it doesn't. There is something fundamentally different about the act of distributing than the act of redistributing. I don't understand why you're too dense to understand that. It has nothing to do with historic reality, it is an analytical construct. (and don't come out against analytical constructs, bc then you're way over your head, kid) Under your definition, a father giving his son some money is redistribution. But, no one believes that - no legitimate economist would say that is the case. (what the economist does is actually define away that situation by treating them as part of a "household" rather than as individuals – pretty slick, eh?)

And, its not necessary to go through all the stages of "history" (if such a thing exists at all) in order to get to what I'm talking about (which is just one quick and dirty example - notice how you keep fixating on the example and not the idea – I'm starting to get frustrated, tbh fam) . Against my better judgement, let me come up with a hypothetical for you. Say, there is a terrible war and almost everything is destroyed. So the government takes over the commons, or natural resources (much of which it technically owns now bc it is on public lands). The State then sets up factories, employs peoples, etc and rebuilds society whilst keeping ownership of everything. BAM. there you have distributional policy with no "redistribution"

Now, you can argue that historically that will never happen – irrelevant. You could argue that this isn't the best system – irrelevant. The point is to give a hypothetical to make the distinction between distribution and redistribution. Another example people often give concerning a distributional policy would be State protection of collective bargaining (as opposed to unemployment compensation or welfare). In this way you increase wages without redistributing - you just aid in setting up the conditions for distribution at the "bottom level"

Does that make sense?

nope. see:

This is not about defining socialism. It is about making a distinction between distribution and redistribution. I think that's why you keep making these terrible mistakes – because you're trying to define socialism, rather than distribution/redistribution

And where comes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs into play?

The question was is there a difference for the lower middle class in Europe between Socialism and this shit we have now? I don't think so.

Now this was the theme of the thread. Capitalism kills culture, because the surplus does not stay within a class. The middle class where culture happens is being milked and nothing of inspirational value remains.

...

No, your example again falls flat because they can't build the factories etc out of nothing. They had to take ownership of materials that had already been produced, the people have already been trained in their professions and the literature and designs exist to be used.

Now, I am perfectly capable of abstract thinking about an idea, however abstract thinking is only useful if it gets you somewhere practical. If no hypothetical situation exists where in your definition can come into being it serves no purpose. Now perhaps there is an example you or I have overlooked where in that applies but I'm not seeing it.

ultimately in any place outside of your own head socialism = redistribution, as an observer of reality I'll have to leave it at that and move on.

t. Antiwhite Christcuck convicted anti-white violence perpetrator Varg Vikenes

FTFY

I think it has more to do with Jew control.

We know that Jews were behind communism, and are very much involved in the higher echelons of capitalistic societies. Communism was brutal, and awful in a way that capitalism could never truly duplicate. Capitalism is the slow boil, communism is the flash fry so to speak. Of course people with a very negative experience of Jews are going to be Jew-wise. Capitalists countries have no such experience.

he's not advocating socialism.
also that's a very stupid way of thinking, assuming everything whites create is good. whites nowadays are fucking degenerate cucks

(((High Finance)))
What a lovely euphemism, thanks Dalai

red herring

red herring/moving the goalposts

YES!!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. YOU FUCKING RETARDED LOLBERG
It's not about surplus. It's about atomization, alienation, autonomy, etc. It's about what capitalism does to communities and families.

Stopped reading there. The State owns the resources (iron, coal, etc) in my example.

Notice, again, how you're fixating on the example and not the idea, the definition. I didn't read any further, because you are clearly more interested in arguing than in learning. have a nice day, retard.

...

ahh right I forgot, the state is god and can mine coal without any labour, expertise, or machinery

really, I should have known.

Varg rolled out yet another retarded pro-commie video

He thinks Marxists were pro-white European until those pesky capitalists infiltrated the movement.

Anybody who follows this guy outside of his music is a fucking idiot

strawman
NOT AN ARGUMENT
The assumption is that you're essentially in a military barracks and patriotic war-torn civilization. In other words, the State IS the people at this point. They get paid, of course with rations, etc.

What you are saying is that people need the (((Capitalists))) to lord over them and force them to work, you ignorant faggot.

Notice again how you are attacking an example rather than looking at the idea. This is how fucking stupid and dense you are.

I gave another example which you have hitherto ignored: collective bargaining
I'll give another: Reforming Intellectual Property Rights

These are examples of distributional policies.

poisoning the well
NOT. AN. ARGUMENT

You debate like an SJW, faggot.

who built the barracks? who made the rations? Someone else.
If someone else made it, and the government is now distributing it, its redistribution.
This is SIMPLE logic

New thread below

NEW THREAD

stopped reading right there
You are fixated on logic an practical examples and evidence. If you can't just accept this on faith, then you are an ignorant fool.
t. not-leftypol

NEW THREAD

NEW THREAD 120

reforming intellectual property rights is not distributing anything as rights are immaterial and ideas are not property as they don't suffer from scarcity. It is simply thee removal of coercive monopoly.

New thread above.

All of those arguments work equally well against capitalism, especially corporate capitalism, so you've basically made no point at all.

Also, questions aren't arguments.

Anyway, you seem to be more interested in trolling and derailing than learning and discussing, so I'm leaving now. Have a nice day. Enjoy your retardation.

we aren't debating religion. economics require no faith only cold hard facts and numbers.

NEW THREAD, GET OVER HERE.

...

I'm not arguing against any system only a definition of a system.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

ss

Give /r/SandersForPresident/ our regards

Capitalism isn't the problem, you faggot. It's kike interference. Hungary, for example, is basically a capitalist state but since they're wise to the nose, they're not pozzed. So fuck off with this "commies/marxists/socialists dindu nufffin" bullshit, Varg.

Don't pay attention to him, he's just a leftypol shitter trying to do what commie kikes always do, subverting.

lol

WHO /INNAWOODS/ HERE?
Varg also thinks Trump is controlled opposition, like all of the Nationalist parties in Europe

If Trump picks Gingrich as his VP or has him anywhere in his administration, then we'll know Varg's right.

See
You're correct. Newt/Adelson = more Israel First, and a way to control Trump. Newt is also a long-time globalist and NAFTA supporter.

kek

Says the one who doesn't understand math and economics. This is why you shouldn't mix up your belief with economic principle.

kek. Molyneux is still a shekel grubbing Jew, though.

youtube.com/watch?v=ndSyIkf79Tg

Ryan Dawson did a pretty good job destroying Molyjew as well. It really does seem like Molyjew is evolving, though

Hard to take Dawson seriously after this video.

I guess it is a testament to the incompatibility between lolbertarianism and nationalism, though.

DA DEMS ARE DA REAL RAYCISS

(!)
Quads confirm,
Democrats started the KKK

lol

No, former Confederate soldiers created the KKK as a gentleman's club, then Yankees came in and subverted it making it a terrorist organization.

Leftists are racist sure, but it's natural human tendency to be "racist"

It's hard to agree with someone on every issue. He's wrong about Zimmerman as well. But I don't think that necessarily debunks him destroying Molyjew on Israel's wall, and I also don't think it discredits his 9/11 research or being at the forefront of challenging the official Holocaust story.

youtube.com/watch?v=_xNaUVmcwB0

Also, you can't really forget about this

I need to stop browsing this retard site

Yeah, definitely can't.

This piece of shit is the "Nazi Hunter" in the video:

pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=340

archive.is/fWzyq

And the "Nazi-Zionist" conspiracy he references is ostensibly based on the Simon Wiesenthal's unwillingness to prosecute Frank, probably due to his lucidity and the fact that Gould's story is so retarded that it would make their fairy tales look even worse.

archive.is/gCTtQ

At this point, I really wouldn't put much stock in anything Dawson has to say, regardless of whether it's about the Holohoax, 9/11, or that kike Molyneux.

Yeah it reeks of a fanfic made by an 8 year old.

Wasn't aware who the so-called mossad Nazi Hunter was. You learn something new every day. Nice research, user. If you have it saved as a doc, though, you might need to edit it as the pjtv link appears to be dead but you seem to be correct.

Thanks, it was working when I originally posted those links in the "Questioning the Holocaust" thread, they must have shut it down.

web.archive.org/web/20151223100921/http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=340
archive.is/5dFL

The video wasn't all that interesting, but I still wish I had ripped it.

...

YOUR PROOF MOLYNEUX IS A JEW
youtube.com/watch?v=edtWe759KIw#t=50

Who fucking cares….the man does great work and is trying to beat it into the heads of libertarians that they need to abandon their open borders bullshit.

"THE SELF PRESERVATION SOCIETY"

The problem with the jews is they have cried wolf so many times, nobody can trust them anymore. If i meet a jew i assume he is trying to steal something from me and give it to the jews, we are in the mess we are at the moment for stopping to think like that, so better not trust a jew, ever. If he didnt receive jewish indoctrination he should be a normal balanced person, but you wont know that until is too late.