How many of you are actually capitalist...

Capitalism works as long as corporations are not allowed to mix and intertwine with government, like what's happening now. It's what ultimately creates corruption: laws being changed by corporations via lobbyists to benefit the corporations.

Keep government separate.

0.001/10 for effort.

Hahahahaha

Go home Holla Forums, you're drunk

Capitalism is liberalism.
Capitalism is leftism, the original leftists of the French revolutionary parliament were absolute free market capitalists.
Capitalism doesn't care about race, nation, culture or ethnicity. It just cares about commodities and it will commodify everything it can and it cares not if it destroys cultures or nations in the process.

Nigga

That's not what he claimed at all.

I like some things about capitalism and I like some things about non-Marxist socialism, but not all the things of either. I consider them to be inferior on their own, so, I'm somewhere in between because I believe in taking the best of both worlds and synthesizing something better from it rather than work with what has flaws under the supposition that "it's the best we got." We can certainly do better, and we have, and we will again.

Which had more degeneracy, the Soviet bloc or the liberal capitalist west?
Who is doing self destructive third world immigration, the ex Soviet bloc or the liberal capitalist west?

The vast majority of Holla Forums cannot into economics.

When people here say "capitalism" what they're referring to is "my ability to buy pretty much anything I want, work wherever and for whatever wage I can agree to with an employer, create shit to sell if I want, and be in charge of my own financial situation".

What they really want is the mostly capitalist but still fairly regulated economy we saw over a century ago under Taft and Roosevelt with their trust-busting, Meat Inspection Act and associated legislation, etc. Basically, a free market for well-meaning non-degenerates and no market for greedy kikes who harm their gullible consumers.

You have to realize it's the west after jewish subversion

How about you take your slide threads to 4/pol/, faggot?

Economy means nothing when the culture suffers an upheaval. The Soviet bloc acted as permafrost while its cousin moved westward and mutated from an economic bane to a cultural one. We see here that "degeneration" of culture is far more dangerous than any economic kind.

Capitalism is part of the Jewish agenda to manipulate wealth and direct it towards themselves.

There is only one system that brings us degeneracy free liberty and to defend us against Jewish degeneracy is state controlled economics.

I don't know what we should call it, though. Maybe communityism, or something like that.

And it has been claimed, not insubstantially mind you, that the Soviets were also Jewish and subversive. But where did the degeneracy thrive? Soviet Marxist Bolshevik propaganda was easy to see through and wasn't believed in even by those who pushed it the most. It failed to undermine both nationalism and Christianity in the Soviet bloc. Now compare that to the methods used in the liberal capitalist west with their free market of ideas and the commodification of culture that lead the west towards the cultural relativism that is killing it.

capitalism doesn't "cause" anything you fucking moron

it's an aggregate behavior of human neuroanatomy

if u deleted money tomorrow we would invent it the next day

"capitalism" was only defined FAIRLY recently whereas is actually has always existed. money systems, exploitation of the weak

it's not capitalism silly. capitalism is just a part of people. in the USSR there was no capitalism but there were elites and plebs. inner party members had access luxury you cannot imagine.

you are a child. do not post for 1 year

Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same shekel.

This. leftypol is fucking cancer

Proud small business owner specialising in storage as well as hauling.

Very little work, set my own hours, and make 700k a year gross

Go homo, lefty.

OP, stop lying. Rand was not an anarchist. She hated anarchists.

Wrong. Humans cause degeneracy. Your totalitarian government means giving absolute power to politicians, the most degenerate parasites in the entire world.

Are we being raided by the NRO?

Go live in Venezuela you leftist faggots.

...

I 100% support slave labor, doesn't bother me in the least. It's the hypocritical leftists who bitch about it, but still use those products.

The free market will fix all of this. We just need to give it another 200 years.

Hitler was a socialist leftist.

thats new

By French Revolution standards, everyone who isn't a monarchist is a leftist.

Capitalism does not cause degeneracy, like science, it is morally neutral until applied. Supply always conforms to demand, never vice versa, and it is consumer demand for pornography, excessive drinking, hollyjew, teledildonics studies, etc. that causes it to be marketed, because the customer is always right. Consumer demand for degenerate things is a symptom of societal decay, which is caused by pic related.
Keep in mind also that global communism is a (((central bankers))) wet dream, having control of all property on Earth and having everyone but a (((chosen))) group of oligarchs reduced to serfdom, centralizing all money and credit in a central bank is one of the planks of communism. Socialism and capitalism are not on/off switches either, and the US and most Western so-called "free market" economies are quasi-socialized because of the dominance of private central banks, certain price controls, etc. the USA meets 5 out of 10 of the planks of communism. Actual capitalism without a central bank, fractional reserve banking, etc. is a kikes worst nightmare because it would restore economic franchise to millions of whites who have been artificially suppressed by inflationary money policy, cronyism, etc, and you could only get rich through hard work and entrepreneurship instead of lending numbers on a computer screen at interest. Fractional reserve banking is a criminal enterprise that is no different from fraud/counterfeiting, and it directly violates private property rights that are intrinsic to capitalism, it only exists because it is protected by law and collateralized with tax money. Jews prosper in either communist/socialist economies or so-called "free market" economies as long as they have their legally privileged rackets available. The best economic system is free market capitalism without a central bank or fractional reserve banking.

A capitalist will support and promote degeneracy if it turns him a profit, regardless of the existence, or lack thereof, of Jewish subversion.

suicide is your best option m8

Degeneracy can be pushed easier under Socialism instead of Capitalism. Look at Sweden for instance. They have programs that fund leftists for promoting "good" causes.

The US is socialist as well, considering that they punish "hate groups" and benefit organizations that promote left-wing causes.

What happens when the cost of manufacturing demand is outweighed by the benefits of consumption brought about by that newly manufactured demand?

Why must a capitalist system always remain reactive to market forces, when capital itself can be used to manipulate the tastes of consumers to by more shit they don't actually need?

The west isn't capitalist, it's socialist.

No one has ever provided a source proving that the USSR funded the Frankfurt School through the KGB. Do people not realise that the kikes in the frankfurt school were just as critical of soviet communism as they were of the West? As far as I've found through research, there's absolutely no evidence that the USSR funded the Frankfurt school.

Don't be an idiot.

You're telling me that a system where a government constantly funds organizations and businesses for social causes isn't socialist?

You, home, now

How so? No one forces you to purchase anything and "being manipulated by advertising/marketing" is a stupid excuse used by people who don't want to admit they are enough of a schmuck to spend $1200/year on Starbucks and such. Advertising and such has little to do with it, it is inflationary monetary policy and Keynesian policy makers that disincentivizes saving and artificially props up aggregate demand and reckless speculation, which again is the fault of the Federal Reserve.

It has a name: (Ethnocentric) National Socialism, the eternal foe and unquestionable superior of gommunism, gabitalism, and lolbergsteinblatzianism.

Stay mad Red Army dog.

...

...

Even if there was not direct collusion the KGB subversion agenda served every single objective of the Frankfurt Cultural marxists, so the US had the double threat of internal subversion from cultural marxism and useful idiots and the useful idiots of the KGB, only difference is that the KGB used it to advance the USSR's geopolitical objectives and the cultural marxist use it to support their twisted philosophy of anti-human, anti-western cancer. The process by which this subversion occurs is still accurately described by the flowchart, and almost identical for both KGB and Frankfurt.

user's right ya know, USA and most Western economies are quasi-socialist and have been for about a century.

Remember to report all shitposting

Science is bad and wrong. (Show pictures of Albert Einstein)
Medicine is bad and wrong. (Show pictures Jewish physicians)
Technology is bad and wrong. (Show pictures of Mark Zuckerberg)
Money is bad and wrong. (Show pictures of Alan Greenspan, Janet Yellen, Benny boy)
Breathing is bad. (Show a picture of a Jew breathing)
Eating is bad. (Show a picture of a Jew eating)

…Christianity is bad (Show a picture of Jesus) ← oh wait, we won't do that one.

Just because you can find a Jew everywhere doesn't mean that X is bad.

So its the Jews that are bad! Without them we won't have such problems will we?

He isn't wrong. Why would you think he is?

Sound about right to me.

...

Which has never and will never happen.
So we can safely say that capitalism doesn't work.

If it easier then why didn't they do it?

Sweden isn't Socialist. It is market capitalist with a human face.

You do know that their immigration program was outsourced and privatized? A lot of good capitalists have capitalized of immigration.

Yes the means of production are squarely in the hands of the workers in the US. Don't go full retard user.

And that has nothing to do with Socialism. And both left and right mainstream politics in the US are capitalist. There are conservative capitalists and liberal capitalists.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

There's a thing known as a mixed economy you know

Economic policy isn't the same as social policy you retard.
I know you Natsoc niggers will blame Jews for making money instead of for doing actual crimes.

This amount of retardation.

Capitalism is economic theory. Economic theories explain how economy works. Caring about something is domain od individual humans.

Capitalism doesn't cause degeneracy, it's just an economic system that is representative of society.

What reasons would you have for calling capitalism degenerate? Capitalism didn't create a central banking system which propagates the spending beyond means, nor did it ever justify a pornographic society, or make Reddit mysteriously gain profit.

The people who promote and aid the degenerate aspects of human civilization come from fully understood backgrounds, and more often than not these people use anything but capitalism to promote decay.

For the most part, state power is a perfect system to allow these people to externalize their own irrationality to manipulate and control you, for example, how else would a deranged single mother gain the ability to promote her own sickly immorality if it was not for welfare and state violence?

In addition, what are you actually doing to actually get at the roots of decay? Since degeneracy has predictable backgrounds, wouldn't it be far more efficient to fight the cause rather than the effect? If you actually went ahead and rationally tackled with empirical evidence ideologies such as feminism or single motherhood, you would produce healthier people less prone to degeneracy in the first place, regardless of it manifests itself in statist or capitalism systems.

So how is the market going to work in our perfect NatSoc government?

National Socialism was capitalism based. Not all capitalism is bad and actually capitalism at its core is good, it just needs to be properly regulated in such a way that has the people's best interests in mind. NS did this very well by not allowing in any way the mixing of private and public sectors. If you are a party leader/politician and you have private sector influence the two cannot interact.

Read Hitlers Table Talk for a good idea, among other things, how capitalism SHOULD work.

vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres10/HTableTalk.pdf

the very definition of socialism would disagree with you all.

Yes, but that infographic asserts that the frankfurt school was directly funded by the USSR through the KGB, which I question the authenticity of. The ideology of the Frankfurt School might have helped weaken the west in the interests of the USSR, but I have yet to see any proof that it was financially supported by them.

But user, kikes are responsible for something like 35% of all white collar crime and that's just what we know of and not including practices that are immoral but technically legal, like jewgle changing the search results of HRC queries.

Also capitalism alone isn't degenerate but like everything else produces degeneracy when left in the hands of people whom degeneracy serves their interest, such as Jews. Read Culture of Critique for a better understanding of Jewish in group social evolution strategy.

Again Hitler Table Talk discusses in depth economic practices in the Third Reich and why they were so successful.

...

Since when does Holla Forums complain about degeneracy?

...

Oh boy. Another capitalism thread in which an autistic teenage neet will try to tell us that capitalism was invented by jews, requires 'people acting in their own rational self interest' and 'a perfectly efficient market'. In the freemarket of life you are bankrupt, that means you need to kill yourself.

Most of Holla Forums are national socialists who don't trust big business and would rather see industry and services nationalized than privatized.

Just the kike shills

A glance at this thread and every thread like it would suggest otherwise. Virtually everyone on Holla Forums is a liberal.

I'm not a capitalist nor a socialist. Both are different cheeks of the same ass.

To some degree. I'm mixed economy proponent because i realize economics is not black and white thing with ideological spectrums. I like the variety of goods and services capitalism offers but i also want to feel secured from the oligarchy, their monopolies and corporations.

Successful capitalist society needs certain socialist policies ingrained in order to dissuade the commies from doing their shit and to run smoothly. How do you think think the 50's economic boom occurred? Yes, it was thanks to the ideas of this lovely homosexual here.

Pretty funny fam

Die, kike.

Racist liberals are still liberals.

Reminder that "muh free market" fags are just as cancerous as the commies

You're retarded.

t. traditionalist

this wouldn't have gotten anywhere if you said capitalism caused world hunger.

Yeah, right. You are a "traditionalist" adherent to the moral philosophy of 19th century liberals.

t. Evola :^)

Pic:

What about the women who worked in soviet factories during the war? Is capitalism at fault for that too?

In times of war, nations pull resources from wherever and whoever they can.

Oh, ok.

Are you trying to be ironic?

Capitalism is a tool like any other, we use it to our advantage to boost life standard and production, and keep it under controll at all times with PROPER laws and regulations.

Filthy strasserite scum who want to make this about capitalism, and not about the real problems need to be hanged.

First thing we need to do after winning is do another Night of the long knives.

t. Holla Forums community college dropout and amateur revolutionary(provisionally between episodes of moeshit.)

This. The State has a duty to promote healthy culture and behavior in its citizens, providing role models to follow, good manners, dress and behavior in public life, etc.

Capitalism is by nature privy to the consumer, and the consumer are citizens, who are naturally guided by the State and its culture. The nation's leader/government must play the role of shepherd to sheep, or father to his sons. There will always be vices available in this world, it's a question of the quality of men to forgo them.

Further reading:
amerika.org/politics/the-question-of-capitalism/

b-but all the cool lolbergs on the aut-right said capitalism is the answer?!

Can you recommend which work of Evola's engages with this element in particular?

Aren't you Holla Forums faggots done attention whoring? You are already on the recommended boards list from all your kvetching, get the fuck out.

Any economic system that ultimately does not benefit society but serves to concentrate and siphon off the wealth away from the people at large is always destructive one because it is a parasitic one - look at tax havens, tax evasion, offshore company registration, international banking, "expenses", campaign funds, kickbacks, bonuses, cyclical booms and busts, etc.
All of the above are hallmarks not of free market capitalism, but of rigged and per-arranged corporatist game.

State as the extension of the people needs to ensure that no force, be it economic or political, internal or external, arises to threaten the security and prosperity of the nation. If domestic corporations grow beyond what is safe, they need to be curtailed. If foreign investment goes beyond what is beneficial, it must be stopped.

The people are the ultimate beneficiary and therefore the ultimate measure of the economy and its utility.

I agree with Evola's analysis. What's your point?

You're retarded and a kike.

What makes racist liberals "liberal"?

Yes, the capitalist world (now and during the cold war) wasn't degenerate or anything.

That whole section quoted is from Men Among the Ruins. His concept of 'normal' opinion runs through all of his books. IMO Men Among the Ruins is the most accessible.

It's been more or less the normal opinion of everyone that those people whose primary activity in life is the pursuit of wealth for the purpose of satiating their appetites are a lower kind of person that should be subjugated by higher types. Aristocrats, priests, warriors.

The organizing principle of society being that people should make as much money as possible to spend on their comfort; primarily in the form of making their groins and stomachs happy is pretty fucking degenerate.

The primary reason that people don't have families in modernity is because "they can't afford it". Which is to say they prioritize their comfort and find pairing off, mating,and raising children too uncomfortable and inconvenient to their habits of conspicuous consumption. They are literally too degenerated to be fertile.

My point is Evola was anti-Capitalist.

Being liberals makes them liberal. They just rationally find niggers and Jews unappealing. Their objection to Jews mostly seems to be of a "It's not fair!" variety, in that Jews are subversive of liberalism. Most of Holla Forums seems to think that Fascism is this panacea that will remove the cheaters from society so that we can then go back to Liberalism.

This entire thread has been nothing but liberal soundbytes.

The reality of the matter is that liberals in the early 19th century had a moral philosophy and they conceived of an economic system which would be more suited to this moral philosophy. They invented Capitalism. If you are under the impression that it is natural and good that mankind live in a laissez-faire environment where legal authority should intercede to ensure that no one is interfering with anyone else's endless pursuit of cummies then you are a fucking liberal.

The entire concept of Capitalism is built on liberal moralism.

I don't think the majority of Holla Forums - or at least those with a few braincells - are "under the impression that it is natural and good that mankind live in a laissez-faire environment". In fact, the necessity of a strong state, of national industry, and of national sentiment are vital for many here. Laissez-faire ideology - as you correctly say is fundamentally related to capitalism - is the ideology of muh individual over the good of the community, the ideology of self absorbed bullshit.

Agreed. Most would answer a firm No if asked if "Are humans are inherently equal?" which is the foundation of liberalism, dating to the french revolution, is founded on.

Would an an-cap say this, though? They are the ultimate liberals in a way, and yet probably wouldn't say that we're all inherently equal.

Of course I'm not a capitalist. Sure there are some ideas in it that work. The same can be said about feudal system. The two both have valid applications within a closed system that is controlled by aristocracy that is measured by spirit and not money. Depending on a country various policies should be instated, but the one thing that's pretty much universal is the need for protectionism. Further than that, the two systems mentioned can be blended and utilized depending on the situation.

As Evola said:
Modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical. As long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, then we are not even close to what is essential…

They are not the ultimate liberals. They do not believe in liberty, fraternity, equality.

This is why most of them eventually become fascist or far right of some flavor.

But they believe in absolute liberalism, economic and social.

By definition, no, they do not.

The contention of most free-market capitalists is that degeneracy as we generally understand it is a self-correcting problem. If the state would stop subsidizing unhealthy and socially unacceptable behavior via social programs that reward poor decisions and laws that force association, then most of the degeneracy you see today would not be possible.

Fuck off, Varg. We've had capitalism for hundreds of years without degeneracy.
It wasn't until degenerate social engineers took over mass media and spread their cancer there that society started to adopt their perversions.

Please explain yourself… By definition a Libertarian should be liberal in all respects; absolute personal liberty.

Well, yes… The government is and always a force for evil, because it takes only one man to take over a hierarchical system, whereas a decetralized system like the market can never be taken over by evil, because there are more good men than bad men.

But the thing is this: The function of capitalism is to get food on the table and free up your time and energy to allow you to do other things. What you do with your excess time and energy does not fall into the realm of capitalism. Yeah, you have more time to do stupid and degenerate things, but you also have more time to do good. The choice is yours.

You are confusing libertarians with libertines.

Libertarianism; a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.

That is its definition. Please, tell me where I'm going wrong.

Attacking capitalism triggers some retards into thinking you are advocating for communism, so I personally avoid it as much as possible, but if you don't understand they're both sides of the same kike coin you're lost.

Soviets were hellbent in destroying slavs until only the servile retards remained, western capitalists are piggy backing on caucasoids by rewarding them the more they get enslaved by their vices.
Marxist propaganda was only ever used to entice westerners, the union had no need to push for demoralization to cause destabilization once they were in control.

National socialism/fascism is the name state controlled economy receives, but god forbid you become a literal nazi, no no, not good.

Please make a definition of Capitalism and Communism/Socialism. It is unclear what you /leftylols/ mean by that.
Capitalism: The fusion of capital and state. The state (or lobbyism) controls the capital.
Communism: The fusion of capital, state and commune.
The state (the Bolshevik/communist councils/communist goverment) controls both the capital and commune.
The antithesis is Anarchy which is (according to Bakunin) a stateless Socialism. Therefore Anarchy is the chaos that is needed in order to establish Socialism and Communism.
All of these parts are controlled by Jews. Therefore we must conclude that neither Capitalism or Communism are a viable solution. I'll state it clearly: Im not a capitalist

gonna need a citation on that

Then it's not capitalism. Enjoy current central planned economy. For prosperity you need: personal freedom, sound money, free market and private property. We only have last one and it's crumbling. We do not live in capitalist system.

The key word is liberty, which is not the same as absolute freedom (to steal, murder etc.)
Libertarians are not Satanists. They believe that you shouldn't innitiate force against the innocent and that punishment for crime should be limited to conduct that harms others. That's it.

You are right, but it doesn't help to say things like "We do not live in capitalist system." and here's why:
Socialists claim that socialism only works if it is 100% of the economy and so they always have an excuse for their trainwrecks.
We capitalists don't need to rely on this silly excuse, because capitalism always works, even if it is only 1% of the economy, even if it only exists on the black market.
I give you an apple, you trim my hedge. Bam! Capitalism! No polit buro, no commissar, no committee required. It just works.

Degeneracy is caused by the lack of standards in the society. It has to do with what people value (temporary pleasure) over what they need (health).

Yet both ideologies, at least in their current forms, have roots in the writing of that disgusting kikess Ayn Rand.

But they're still socially liberal, i.e. they're fine with homosexuality, all religions, all races etc. They don't necessarily think they're all equal, but they don't want state infringement of these people, surely. What would a libertarian view on immigration be, for example?

There is a link between wealth and health.

Up until a point the pursuit of wealth directly aligns with the pursuit of health.

There is a lane which when crossed deviates into hedonism, degeneracy and social decay. Capitalism came into the world when the masses were poor, and where money more or less directly correlated with a better, longer life. In such an environment the pursuit of capital is more or less the best thing ever.

There should of course be moral-restrictions on 'capitalism'. The health of the nation should, as far as is humanly possible, not be damaged by the acquisition of capital. Health before wealth and everything is fine; you would no longer have people making purposefully inferior products or medicines that do not cure profit. You would no longer have mass immigration or anything else.

Health is most important; but having wealth is a large part of having good health. Thus in your 'nationalist' society you would find that 90% of the time you would do business like capitalists.

It's not capitalism, it's materialism. Important theoretical distinction; not so much in practice.

If there is no real practical distinction, then how can the theoretical distinction be useful?

Because materialism isn't exclusive to capitalism, they just tend to go hand-in-hand. The attitude of "a man is defined by the sum of his possessions" is the moral malaise so common to capitalism but it can be found in other places as well and it is also possible for capitalism to be relatively benign if materialism is culturally excised.

continuing:
Degeneracy can be fought both in Capitalism and in Socialism/Communism.
In Capitalism the standards have to be set by a culture of religion. Example: In united States of the 19th century, people had better sense of sexually unacceptable behavior, because the church and the community kept people in line.
In a country ruled by a communist/socialist dictatorship, these rules have to be imposed by the state. In soviet Union, same rules of sexually unacceptable behavior were made by the State.
The Religious institutions and the state can also co-operate, which was the case in Nazi Germany and in Yugoslavia.

Capitalism does not equal degeneracy, the company selling you mind-numbing substances does well only because the people are dumb enough to do those substances. If you were able to drop the demand, there would be no supply.
We can, however go on about the role of the welfare state regarding degeneracy. In a society where the state takes care of peoples basic needs, you see more short-sighted (r-selected) and degenerate behavior.
In my opinion the current mix of socialism and capitalism (welfare state) is the worst imaginable combination of freedom and slavery. You are supposed to serve a state which does not enforce any set of rules to provide the cultural/spiritual as well as the physical survival of our people.

Who exactly will do that?. The second private players get so much wealth to be called "corporation", they WILL use it to buy every gov official they can, hell, they will put their own people there, search "revolving doors". It's like saying "we don't need locks on our doors, just please don't steal". It's totally unrealistic demand. That's why allowing any bigger private wealth leads to feudalism.

Good post.

That is a very common misconception. Liberarians are not socially liberal.
Libertarians want to be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
You should be able to ban anyone and anything for any reason from your home, from your business, from your school, etc. You could create your own degeneracy free society without asking for permission. When you don't need to be told what to think and what to do, government is a burden.

Health is not binary. There's always something to improve. If health is the ultimate goal, then the bureaucrat who says "chew on this weed, everything else is 'outrageous hedonism'" must be rejected.

We live in a material world. It's not negotiable for us as humans to forego consumption.
As long as we live we need to eat and drink and have shelter, etc.

…but creating a degeneracy free society is essentially forming a government. Of course individuals can personally discriminate, but if people organize together to do so, and make those rules of discrimination apply within the land they say they own, how is it different from a government? Forming a society changes everything. A society based on libertarian principles must necessarily be socially liberal.

Socialism is institutionalized degeneracy. When the supreme court politburo tells you to do something, it's hard to refuse, because there's always an "or else" part.
You always want to have the ability to make a choice, because the overlords are never angels and they are always tempted by the old serpent to feed on you.

Ultimate redpill here, no ideologies in the modern day are applicable because we have failed to understand the most important thing in a society, the purity of race. Until a society becomes 99% homogeneous any and all attempts to make it work will fail.

How does your ability to buy a safer car and a cellphone with a higher resolution lead to feudalism?
Businesses serve the consumer, i don't see a lot of demand for feudalism.

Just a heads up, there is a proper term for what you're describing:
REGULATORY CAPTURE

Free-market capitalism, or as economist like to call it laissez-faire capitalism results in exactly what you describe.
And this is where strong government and nationalizing key industries comes in.

Nationalized banks and infrastructure can pull enough strings to keep capitalism in check, thus preventing the exploitation of the governed. This also assumes the people have a way to purge corrupt government officials.

Regulatory capture.
When you get rich enough, the rules of society don't apply to you. From there, you can start eliminating competition, essentially becoming a feudal lord.

Oh my fucking god go away Holla Forums nobody gives a fuck about the bourgeoisie gas yourself or call (((them))) what they really are.

Sorry, Libertarians are not Anarchists either. You might want to inform yourself a little bit, before rushing into these threads.
Libertarians want government out of their lives, because government is not needed in most areas of life and in fact most areas are practically free of government control. People don't have to go to the government for their arranged marriages or government mandated gardening programs, etc.
Libertarians see government as a necessary evil and the government should do as little as possible, not as much as possible, because of intrinsic problems with central planning and of course the old serpent.

Is that like being a soviet commissar? Again… Capitalism is neither good nor bad.
The rich and the poor alike have the ability to use their wealth for good or bad.

No, they serve the owners in multiplying their private invested capital.

So libertarianism is really just "government does things I like and doesn't do things I don't like"?

Sweet ideology bro.

Right, it is a mutually beneficial relationship. The businessman gets what he wants and the customer also gets what he wants. Beautiful.

You are like Mr. Misconception. How about you inform a little bit, instead of going "So X is basically just ? That's stupid!"
it makes the conversation so much more pleasurable.
libertarians want government to do the bare minimum that is required to ensure the survival of the nation.
Military, National Defense, etc.

My point is that almost every ideology wants government to do the bare minimum that is required to ensure the survival of the nation. What is meant by the "bare minimum required" is what differs. You are saying nothing with that definition of libertarianism.

That is news to me.
Pic related. Check out the green circle & black circle.

Yeah, I'll be ramping up my shitposting on their board after this.

Shill please. Jews cause degeneracy, both within the communist system that they created and the capitalist system that they are parasites upon.

I think that guaranteeing the ability to hold some material goods in unlimited quantities (i.e. capital) is essential for human to produce complex products.

However, I find that some properties of capitalism cause problems in most countries. Free market (allowing to sell literally everything) provides the ability to have wealth unmatched to the amount of effort to make and the actual usefulless of the thing being sold. Current law system allows a single person to control very large business and free market makes this person able to sell their influence. Free market makes producing influence magnitudes more expensive than producing actual products.

I also think that provision of free market should be accompanied by education of people but in most cases it is not.

The free market leads to a phenomenon. A rich business may produce something and then buy the influence (advertisement, lobby, competitives, whatever) thus weakening the conditions in which they will be awarded.

Free market makes people able to benefit from the most primitive needs more than from their most important needs. Making a shitty movie with retarded jokes will award you more than making a movie about how exactly Judaism and Islam are bad. Making a fast food network will award you more than making a food network which provides healthy food.

Free market competition is an interesting thing as well. People generally say that it is good because it leads to greater number of goods to be produced. However, expense optimisation tends to favour the most idiot-optimised products and more specialised products are shaded and become more difficult to use.
—————————

Yes I see all of that. However, this is a complex problem to solve and I do not dare to, yet. Capitalism itself is not a problem, the problem is that somebody failed when implementing it.

Jews could be an Israel-contained problem if somebody did not fail in the beginning of their expansion.

Capitalism is not an ideology. Capitalism is a model of people relations.

Why do so many people here unironically call themselves capitalists?

It's a buzzword leftist invented to describe free market economies which they despise so much.

To the people here defending "capitalism", ask yourself what kind of economic model you actually advocate.

Capitalism/Libertarianism/Free market tl;dr

Or do you actually more believe in the following:

If the second sounds better to you, then you aren't a capitalist and you shouldn't suddenly rush to the aid of people who are very clearly responsible for the decline of our civilization. Most political parties, organizations and persons people here support aren't "capitalist" either

Market economy =|= capitalism

Opposition to capitalism =|= muh lefty

So what. We are capitalists, in the sense that we favor the accumulation of capital, rather than its destruction. We live for the future, rather than the present.
The marxist definition of capitalism, which you bought into is total garbage, but the term is not bad.

I'm not Capitalist or Communist

Stop with this cringeworthy meme.

Its important to know that Ethiopians are our allies

I am, because I understand that real capitalism is antithetical to kikes, which is why they pushed so hard to kill it by creating and sustaining the Federal Reserve.

America hasn't been Capitalist in a hundred years. Not since Woodrow Wilson signed the fed back into existence.

Some people try to insist that Capitalism is tainted, because Jews corrupted it too much. I'm not interested in abandoning the natural evolution of Mercantilist principles in an industrial world just because some sniveling rats sprayed Oligarchy all over it.

Thanks for confirming you aren't one of us. It's good to know we're being raided straight from the horse's mouth.

Capitalism doesn't cause degeneracy. Jews cause degeneracy. If you wish to argue otherwise, then kindly explain what it was that Capitalism explicitly does that encouraged degeneracy, keeping in mind that it cannot be Jew related.

And "muh free markets" isn't a valid claim, either. Capitalism isn't about Free Markets. Free markets is a meme created by Cultural Marxists and Jewish Oligarchs during their long march through the institutions. It's a Jew policy scrubbed clean and integrated into the national Conservative zeitgeist with the express intent of derailing and corrupting it. It is not a Conservative policy, and Pat Buchanan has written entire books on the subject explaining why.

True Capitalism presupposes regulated markets, just like how a true Republic presupposes a rejection of Democracy, a true Democracy presupposes a rejection of Socialism, and a true Socialist state presupposes a rejection of multiculturalism.

And skinhead is a buzzword Jews invented to smear the leftover remnants of Rockwell's American Nazi party while they finished stuffing his dismembered corpse down the memory hole with a stick.

That doesn't mean we aren't going to end up using that by the end of this, too.

Stop running away from words they take and create. Start creating your own, taking co-opted words back, and tainting and stealing their own terms for your use. This is an Orwellian Wordwar, and you're in full fucking retreat out of a misguided hipster sense of literary purity.

Global Capitalism is cancer.

If the mysterious multi-ethnic bourgs that just so happen to have a couple of Jews in their ranks simply wanted to keep the status quo so they can keep exploiting da borkers, they would promote nationalism and family values while pumping out anti-communist propaganda on a daily basis. The exact opposite is occurring.
(((Porky))) either doesn't know what the fuck he's doing or he's thinking so many steps ahead of the Holla Forumstards that fighting him is completely pointless and they might as well go back to doing drugs all day.
I do like the britcuck commie whining about censorship on Holla Forums in your screencap, as if commies have some sort of god given inalienable right to spreading their filth here. I bet he cheers every time somebody in his dystopian hellhole gets arrested for a racist tweet.

Because they're partly mixed with Arabs? That makes them our allies?

You guys make the stupidest bait threads.

This thread should be bumplocked already.

What you're describing is ideological Libertardianism and globalism, not ordinary capitalism. You're just another confused clueless neo-nazi LARPer. Fuck off.

They must have confused us for people who thought the French Enlightenment was a good idea.

Peddlers of poison don't have a right to push their civilization-destroying filth on anyone, much less on children and the uninformed. Only delusional lolbergs and the peddlers themselves disagree.

It's what Capitalism ultimately develops into and it's today's reality.

WEW, you sure showed him.

That graphic is over simplified at best.

Both capitalism and communism are only tools. Neither are evil. It's really up to those in charge.

However communism gives too much power to the state which makes it easy to abuse. Capitalism is the state before it has been all consolidated into one big mega corporation.

How is this a bait thread?

With a userbase of libertarians and natsocs, the question of economics is bound to come up.

Bullshit. Keynsianism is unbridled economic cancer, Keynes literally rejected any thought of the long term sustainability of his ideas because "in the long run we are all dead anyway", and as a homosexual he did not have kids so he had no problem in paying for present excess by robbing future sustainability. The 50's economic boom occurred because we made it out of WW2 with almost no damage to our domestic industries, unlike European nations which had been gutted from the war. This meant that we temporarily had a captive export market combined with an artificially strong USD because of Bretton Woods. Keynes had absolutely nothing to do with the post-war economic boom. Capitalism and socialism are diametrically opposed, private property rights cannot be reconciled with an ideology which either seeks to abolish private property entirely (full blown communism) or considers it completely expendable at the whims of the ruling regime, command economies are diametrically opposed to decentralized free markets. Hayek was right that there can be no middle ground between capitalism and socialism that does not eventually lead to full blown socialism.

Command economies are an inextricable part of socialism by definition. The USA currently meets 3 planks out of 10 on the planks of communism, the Federal Reserve being one of them (centralization of all money and credit), and while not a full blown command economy there are very few aspects of trade, domestic or foreign that are unmolested by government intervention, and they are getting fewer with every shitty legislation passed. If you do not realize that so called "Free market western economies" are quasi-socialist and free market in name only it is because you do not know what socialism is definitionally or are one of those faggots who thinks their special snowflake socialism which is completely different yet undefined and unexplained will actually work this time.

We're a majority fascist/national socialist/third positionist board, only a small minority of lolbergtardians still think muh mythical free markets are a real or good thing worth pursuing.

You're confusing capitalism and mercantilism; capitalism, which allows foreign and transnational interest to predate your economy and cosmopolitan bankers to gain control of your economy and monetary supply via extra-legal means, is always bad. Always.

You could do the exact same thing in mercantilistic, feudal, slave-holding, barter or any other economic system which had commerce.

Capitalism doesn't cause anything but prosperity and liberty. Capitalism is the only reason you have the standard of living you have and can shitpost on the internet all damn day.

In true Capitalism the cream rises to the top, good ideas flourish, bad ideas die. Capitalism is an engine of individual liberty and wealth as well as the strength of the community. By engaging in Capitalism you by default contribute to and help your society. What causes a problem is when leftists meddle with the market, creating monopolies, merging with government. That's when you get what we currently have, everything is marxist propoganda that has to be forced rather than thrive on merit. Everything is a tool for crony, corporatist bureaucrats to rule over you.

Capitalism is basically a form of social and economic fascism in which the most creative, the most intelligent, the most ambitious (aka whites) rise to the top. Do not blame Capitalism.

Donald Trump above all else is just this, a Capitalist. That's why the true backbone of his platform is trade, profit, jobs, taxes.

This anti Capitalist Holla Forums meme needs to go.

So, not capitalist at all, they want a nationalistic mercantilistic economy?

You're one those CAPITALISM IS JES PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND COMMERCE GOYIM. You're wrong. Private ownership exists even in tribal barter economies, and competition exists everywhere, no need for a social class of big capital holders and banks controlling economies while erroneously calling them free and removing all nationalistic protections and domestic incentives places on an economy in the pursuit of MUH FREEDUMBS. Also, as capitalism is only focused on maximizing the profits of the capital-holding class and maintaining the illusion of infinite growth at all costs, it is highly inimical to functional, healthy, self-sufficient, self-propagating nation-states.

Let's dispel once and for all the myth that capitalism and communism are opposing ideologies: both seek the same goal, the only difference between the two is at which demographics their propaganda are aimed. Our own contemporary American society and politics is highly illustrative of the fact both capitalism/conservatism and communism/progressivism seek to create a globalist state controlled by a vanguard party of elites comprised entirely of Jews and their shabbos goyim, both push a degenerative lowest-common-denominator cultural imperialism which replaces all that is traditional, national, and pragmatic with base hedonism, consumerism, and mindless idealism. Both are only focused on material and economic concerns, both only measure human and social worth in material and economic terms, the ideal end-goal of both are a global society in which idleness and manufacturing productivity are both maximized to no other end than they are maximized and this is deemed a priori good.

Another similarity: both communists and capitalists believe their system isn't ideology at all, it's just nature and science and anyone who doesn't agree is a moron in need of a "proper education".

Because sex totally doesn't sell.

I'm growing out of it, but it's a work in progress and I feel lost a lot. It's hard for me to think about prosperity in terms different than health or finances and capitalism is great for both of those. But it's obvious to me that a focus on competing economically with everyone creates its own cult of worship of the material world. With all that said, I buy even less the idea that socialism works when it's done with just whites, as people like to say around here.

Frankfurt school were being funded by both Judeo–Bolsheviks and Anglo-Zionist capitalists.

So? Anglo-Zionists were highly critical of and nominally opposed to Judeo-Bolshevism, yet funded and armed it from its inception.

Bolshevism is inherently rootless and stateless, the USSR had many operatives and factions throughout the world promoting the international communist agenda without being tied directly to the government of the USSR.

Before that they were mercantilistic. In fact, the only major capitalist economy I can think of is British Empire in the 19th century when it was firmly in the hands of Rothschild and other Jewish bankers and when it was quickly being eclipsed by the rising mercantilistic powers of Germany and the US.

So, it's almost like capitalism has always been shit.

This post is fucking hilarious. My favourite part is the implication that the USSR was not a state

More tinfoil for this one I think

...

>We're a majority fascist/national socialist/third positionist board

Nah that's your fantasy. Both the neonazi LARPers and the libertarians are the minority. But 99% of people here are white nationalists and the vast majority is from the U.S. and I bet that majority doesn't give a shit about ideologies. Intellectual and ideological masturbation is just a useless distraction.

The USSR is no more a state than Israel is a state: the USSR was a state headquarters of an international ideological agenda just like Israel is a state headquarters of an international ideologial agenda. Sure, geographically it's a state, but it does not operate in the same manner or by the same principles as a nation-state. They are merely shell corporations of a global criminal enterprise.

Pulling shit out of your ass, huh.

Prosperity that leads to decadence and the liberty to degenerate. Any society that embraces capitalism as its first principle is wholly immoral.

Fuck off cunt.

t. UK

So 99% of the people here think whites are great, and that's pretty much the end of the story?

Yes, formulating methodologies to fight our enemies and organize ourselves is worthless distractions. If we just got rid of nonwhites (not that we'll develop a method to do so, because that would be LARPing) we could use the same systems to govern ourselves because there are no fundamental and inherent flaws in the basic principles and assertions upon which these systems are built.

Good thing the majority of our movement is serious people like yourself.

Capitalism is leftism, capitalism as practiced now is neo-liberalism acting to further globalism and has no problem working in tandem with socialism to achieve a globalist state and currency. What better way to remove all barriers to trade than to remove the barriers between nation-states? That's what free trade is, removing borders and imposing globalist governance in the name of commerce.

And a really shitty, biased, head up its own ass theory at that. Theory as in political theory not a hard science theory, so just a systematized school of opinions, basically a cult.

You're right, it's doesn't cause it, human weakness causes degeneracy. Capitalism is just able to turn a nice, easy profit on degeneracy and has no stake in the nation-state or the survival of a people or race, so it seeks to promote and increase degeneracy for greater profit.

Actually, it did, as capitalists who held state power are the ones who rescinded laws against usury, tore down protectionism, lobbied for free trade and open borders, and vested power in central banks, and socialists helped them every step of the way, just as capitalism helped socialism push multiculturalism, hedonism, and the assaults on national and traditional values.

Nope, maercantilism-based. Do none of you faggots even know what mercantilism is?

What about the women working in factories in the 18th and 19th centuries? What about all the women working before that? You didn't fall for the BS feminist propaganda that before WWII no woman ever worked outside the home, dide you?

It's an ideology, you're one of the idiots who thinks capitalism = commerce.

Wew!

Some of you losers here are trying to completely rewrite society on a piece of paper. It's not gonna work.

And if you can't even 'rewrite' your own personal environment and 'rewrite' the trajectory of your life then how do you think you'll be able to rewrite all the rules everywhere and change the minds of everyone else?

Spending that much time and energy on rigid Ideologies is a complete waste.

Capitalism is a materialist ideology, just like communism, both are only concerned with the economic, nothing else matters in either systems, just the economic. How is that not materialist? Where is there a spiritual aspect in capitalism?

I really hope you're not that naive. Also, the market need not be centralized to control it, just monopolize banking and currency creation and you control the market.

And that's not at all what's happening most of the time here and you know it.

Only state-controlled to a point, only sectors vital to the national interest. Joe the Local Merchant or Pete the Owner of the Factory that makes furniture isn't being controlled by the state, they're having their enterprises protected from Chaim the owner of Rootless Cosmopolitanmart and Chang the Owner of the Factory that makes furniture in China from reprocessed sewage and aborted fetuses.

Sound money and private property, yes, the other two are worthless. Replace free market with domestic free enterprise and protectionism against foreign and transnational interests. Replace personal liberty with appropriate obligations and warranted privileges.

The fuck are you going on about, the purpose of leftism is to destroy tradition. In that the commies and capitalists are and have always been united.

I know nothing of the sort.

...

...

...

What is liberty but freedom from obligation? Society should be based upon fidelity and obligation, not infidelity and liberty.

Yeah, and communism is totally just the natural development of historical processes. OUR IDEOLOGY AIN'T IDEOLOGY AT ALL, IT'S JUST SCIENCE AND NATURE.

The arrogance of some people, I swear to fuck.

Hey, evidence that not all Tor posters are shit.

wew lad

So does pretty much everybody else. Hell even communists want to accumulate capital, just all for their vanguard party and none for you.

Hi newfag

Kill yourself

It's true, Abyssinians (real Ethiopians) are like 40% Caucasoid and are pretty developed for Sub-Saharan Africans, but Ethiopia got overran with real niggers long ago so real Abyssinians are an endangered population.

So, "real capitalism" is mercantilism? Because before the Federal Reserve and all that shit, we were American (also called National) school mercantilists.

Skinhead originated with working class nationalist British youths who shaved their heads and roughed up immigrant scum.

There was private property and profit-making in mercantilist, feudal, and slave-owning economies. Hell, even in tribal economies both are present. even in the primitive economies of higher animals you see rudimentary conceptions of property and profit. This i why you faggots think capitalism is natural because you wrongly conflate your ideology with shit present in every fucking ideology and system which has commerce and ownership.

Capialism is a just a necessary stage in the development of communism, necessary to globalize national wealth and manufacturing bases so neither are tied to the nation-state, making the nation-state so much easier to dismantle when coupled with decades of Marxist assaults on the underpinnings of cultural and social stability. Capitalism just acts as another arm working towards globalist governance under the kike cabal.

Yes?

I am a Libertarian Capitalist. I suppose free enterprise, and I support the right of the people to engage in whatever degenerate behavior they so desire, as long as they do not violate the rights of others in the process.

I lean towards free-markets and "capitalism", but capitalism in its purest form is just as cancer as communism

Read Evola

So you're literally just a liberal then.

What about freedom of association? You need to physically remove communists and democrats. Degenerates, so to speak.This is what I find so autistic about the NAP, waiting until someone harms you to act.

State should have a say in what to ban. Protectionism must be the norm.

Degenerate. Just because it can be sold doesn't mean is should be sold. Consumerism is cancer.

We need to go back to producing what is necessary and morally good. Sure, you'll never stop production of shit completely, but capitalism incentivizes it. It needs to be a flaw of the human condition and not a feature, something that capitalism makes it into because it's part of the materialistic ideology.

Some capitalist concepts should be utilized, but we should never describe ourselves as capitalists. It's the same as tolerating non WASPS in the US. Other whites may have good ideas and should be embraced, but you don't call yourself multicultural for it nor do you put emphasis on acceptance as a value. Once you do, you start a slide towards destruction. It's the same with capitalism as a materialist degeneracy.

No. Capitalism is the only system who rewards those who work hard with something else than a mud hut and tyranny. It favors freedom and independance, and in its purest form can be kept away from negatively influencing the family unit.
Degeneracy comes from the jews who have poisoned our lifestyle with their simplified entertainment for halfwit goys, causing a huge divide between the eldery and the youth. Degeneracy comes from the wasp population that was convinced that gloablism was the key to economic success, causing hundreds of thousands of jobs to be re-localized in brown countries. Degeneracy comes from the vanishing ethnic nation state and expanding social policies from corrupt governments.

I say fuck off to all shills and leftypol faggets, times where democracy was coupled with capitalism saw intensification of technological advances and top-to-bottom social equalization.

Neither of these are inherently good nor are they the core of a spiritually prosperous nation.

Nope, tribalistic, slave-owning, feudalistic, and mercantilistic all offered those, too. It's like your entire view of the past is wholly colored by bullshit anti-traditional revisionist cultural marxist and cultural capitalist nonsense.

user, please.

We need a decentralized system under an Aristocracy that promotes local green sustainable economies. The Aristocracy is governed by a Monarch and the Church holds all the classes together

Why are you combining those two? Feudalism did nothing wrong.

I also find the pics this user posted funny. They're supposed to be glorious capitalist propaganda, but I'm seeing a completely different thing.

I didn't say they were good to emulate, they were naturally evolved and necessary arrangements for their age, locations, and technology levels. There could be situations in the future in which feudal social arrangements may become desirable, slave society it depends on your meaning of slave: do you mean slave as in temporary government conscripts or as in a permanent underclass of typically aliens or debt-slaves in legal bondage? The former type of slave economy has merit, the latter usually leads to social divisions and tensions which hasten civilizational decay and collapse.

so you promote a socially destructive, completely self-centered materialist ideology. Completely degenerate

The problem is that most of these people go on to try to give their children a good life. They don't make their children earn it, they give it to them. And this gives us Jews and Social Justice Warriors: children born with silver spoons in their mouths that have unrealistic ideas about how wealth is created. These children then serve as useful idiots to the globalist elite (frequently Jews) in expanding that elite's agenda (with a moralistic sugar coating for the useful idiots to enjoy). In this manner, capitalism creates affluence which is self-destructive to capitalism.

What do you define as a sustainable economy, and how would that function under your supposed aristocracy

Why should we want a monarch? Monarchies have proven to be quite shit, especially when the heirs are not suited to lead. What we need is meritocratic authoritarianism, where the best, most suited individuals are given power.

What if I reject your church dogma? Why should I accept any of it as fact? We don't need any theocracy. What we need is a system based around militant racial propagation and radical self-improvement.

I didn't. The user I was responding to lumped the two together

Also, feudalism is a completely shit system. Why the hell would you want to bring that back in any form?

In what world would feudalism ever be beneficial to our race or in our interests?

When I think of slave, I think of it the "muh oppression" way like most people do. Not in the traditional debt-payment way. You should define your terms before making an argument, because it could be confusing.

The problem with such a system is that meritorious individuals will always try to hand their station over to their children, whether or not those children are similarly meritorious. That is human, no an even more primitive biological nature.

So you're promoting capitalism without the concept of inheritance?

then the structures in place should be designed not to give such a leader absolute power so that such a thing could happen. I'm not familar with the system in place in Singapore, but it's an authoritarian state with very little corruption. Just because something is a natural tendency for people, does not make it beneficial for the society to be structured around that. I don't see how a hereditary monarchy is in any way beneficial or justifiable in the modern world where there isn't the same kind of religious authority to reinforce it.

Monarchies have historically been far superior to any of the illegitimate governments produced by revolutions. The Shah was better than the Ayatollah, the Tsar was better than the Bolsheviks, France was much better under its Kings and Emperors than it was under any of the Revolutionary governments.

Here is a rebuttal of anti-monarchy myths: madmonarchist.blogspot.com.au/p/myths.html

Sustainable economies are ones that produce what they need locally such as food, housing, clothing etc. Small local business is favored over international jewish corporations. Permaculture, New Urbanism and other such movements are leading in this direction.

Aristocracy provides the best in decentralized small local government while having oversight from the Monarch.

Like 25% of the prominent Capitalist theorists are Jewish

100% of the prominent Socialist/Communist theorists are Jewish

I don't know what I'm promoting. People want what is best for their children. This board is dedicated to people acting in the interests of their kin group. Even Social Justice Warriors send their children to nigger/spic-free schools, while deriding such institutions as racist. I don't believe I understand enough about the dynamics of long-lived institutions that ask people to go against their interests.

That's true, but you won't change the American mind. Their future is grim. They rode high off of European culture, exploited utter materialism and after the crash, what are they going to do? They have no aristocracy, king, religion. Only Texas has a proto-culture.

Except all commies were athiests who denounced their Jewishness.
Marx himself actually wrote a lot of very negative things about Jews. He has a book called "On the Jewish Question" and he discusses race, religion and money in it.

It was beneficial to our race for about 1200 years, until advancing technology, increased population, and changing social relations led to mercantilism. What are you quarrels with feudalism? It wasn't the most economically efficient system, but it did safeguard tradition, promote culture, allowed the common folk to live mostly free of interference sans a string of obligations set by custom, protected by Church and Crown, and reciprocated by the Lord for the most part.

Your Marxist education undoubtedly painted you a negative picture of feudalism, but the typical commoner in a medieval European feudal society was burdened with less taxes and less governmental regulations and interference, worked less hours a year, owned more property and wealth, and had more idle time than the common worker in modern Western democratic/republican societies.

Jews are an ethnic group

Nowadays, two prominent ways of life prevail in mankind, which have been transformed into two ideologies respectively; that is, Western individualism and Eastern collectivism. In Western individualism, characterized by liberalism, an unbridled freedom of the individual prevails, along with competition which is a detrimental factor to society overall. In Eastern collectivism state dominance prevails, which undermines people’s freedom. In both instances, man is overlooked as a person, just as human society is not regarded as a society of human persons.

These two systems of living and ideological models are both made manifest in societal reality. Liberalism prevails in the West and its “headquarters” are the United States of America – the “Mecca” of globalization, while collectivism appeared in countries of the former Soviet Union, but also in countries of the Far East in general.

In both cases capital has a prominent place, except that it is differentiated in who possesses it and who manages it. In liberalism, capital ends up among the few and it moves, mostly unrestrained, along the principle of market self-adjustment. In collectivism-communism, capital is state-controlled. In both cases the average person is victimized, the difference being that he is victimized either by the oligarchy of a handful of wealthy tycoons or by an insatiable State. Capitalism thus has only a callous face to show.

The view has been expressed that capitalism is the creation of Western individualism and especially of Protestant morality, as indicated by Max Weber, and that it aspires to the accumulation of wealth by a few, while Marxism, which originated from Marx’s views, is only a reaction to capitalism and is concerned with the whole of society. Deep down however, both these systems are the offspring of the same, Western metaphysics - given that Marx was a German Jew raised in the West - however his theories, which were born in the Western “sphere”, were transfused to the East, because that was where the practice of Orthodox Christianity existed, with its principles of common ownership and communal use and could therefore be implemented.

The national socialist government of Mosssadegh was better than both, too bad the CIA couped it.

You're only pandering to Zionistic lies if you buy this one. Sure, Ashkenazi Jews and brown Jews from the middle east are one ethnic group…. :^)

It a false dichotomy, though. Just saiyan.

That's what it says. Both are a product of Western theology.

You know jackshit about America.

I was just reacting to the first sentence, I hadn't finished reading it yet, just blurting shit out, dude.

Not talking about Sephardics, they suffered severe dysgenics to the point where they have no relevance in the modern era.

Nonetheless, Jews are a separate ethnic group.

Who else then? I didn't pull this out of my ass, like you did your NO U response.

fair enough

Literally how can you say a blonde Ashkenazi Jew is the same ethnic group as a brown middle-eastern Jew. They are so clearly not.

Most every state and regions within states have their own cultures. My state is divided into about 5 or major regional cultures which are further sub-divided in local cultures, and within those local cultures are groupings of clan traditions. Of course, this is only true for regions that have been settled for…. oh let's say at least 150 years and for family lines which have been here since before 1900. Newer settled regions and family lines that haven't been American since before the 1900s are different stories.

I didn't; I said Jews are a separate ethnic group from Europeans; pursuant to this point, their subdivisions are largely irrelevant.

Communism is completely Jewish.

Why are you the authority on what constitutes a "legitimate government"? For all intents and purposes, the government that has power and calls the shots is legitimate, regardless of what people would like to think.
I would agree with you, however this doesn't necessarily prove that Monarchy is the best system, only that it was replaced with worse systems. There are many inherent flaws to monarchies that are blatantly obvious from even a short study of history.
Most of those rebuttals are assuming the person being argued with is a proponent of democracy. I am not. I don't see why a monarchy is in any way beneficial when we have the capacity to create systems far more suited to the needs of a modern state, especially one based on racial pride.
Do you mean a pre-industrial revolution system? That kind of system was incredibly inefficient and held back technological progress. There's absolutely nothing wrong with factory-made goods.
I agree that regional produce and products should be emphasised and favoured over jewish mega-corps - I just don't see why such a system is dependent on a monarchy.
Why? Because you assert this to be true? Why should I accept this statement?

Capitalism is just a means, because with opportunities and money you can buy your way. But I refuse every ideology, and the west mandate over any society or any people.

White Jews might be different to other White Europeans, but they will be genetically closer to White Europeans than they are to brown Jews.

...

I don't think you understand what a culture is and how long it grows. Culture isn't things evolved from our ancestor's European ideas. Culture is a higher spiritual creation that takes hundreds of years to shape a soul before it express itself, producing a civilization. It's something unique that creates anew, not mutates old.
It's Greek culture. Russian culture. Viking culture. Not Polish culture. Or French culture. Even less some random American states.

...

There's no such thing as a White Jew.

White is a specific racial identification for people originating from the European continent, largely in the context of moving to the Americas and British dominions.

The amount of people you could plausibly claim are "White Jews" is infinitesimal. The most goyish looking Jew is Scarlett Johanson, who is half danish and you can still tell she's Jewish by looking at her lips and her ashkenazi eyes.

They are a separate ethnicity. They are also entirely responsible for socialism and communism.

Yes, and?

God by the Divine right of Kings in the West and the Mandate of Heaven in the East

True but all systems have flaws. I happen to believe that monarchy is the best system but I'm open to information on others

Monarchies tend to be symbols of national unity. Consider the doctrine of Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality in Russia. Race-mixing is a result of globalist and anti-traditionalist forces. Otherwise people tend to have children with others with the same traditions and culture.

A post industrial system after the depletion of fossil-fuels assuming that nothing more efficient than solar,wind etc. energy is developed. I don't particularly care for "technology for technologies sake".

Because it helps protect a regional decentralized system from being dominated at a national level. Something like Jefferson intended for America but under an autocratic system rather than a republican one.

I'm obviously still developing my thinking on this matter and I haven't read a whole lot o it so if you could recommend some books that would help that would be appreciated.

Because feudalism is an incredibly inefficient system that oftentimes led to the abuse of the feudal lord's population and their mistreatment. Just look at how serfs in Russia were treated. They were essentially slave labour for the Lords to do with as they wished. Such a system locks up incredible amounts of human potential in stagnant agrarian systems, and thus hold back technological progress. In serfdom, everything is essentially owned by the landlord, thus you run into problems that are typical of communism, where people simply work the bare minimum because they are never rewarded for their hard work. Why would any technological progress occur in a feudal system, when there are no market pressures to industrialize or make more efficient means of production?
Feudalism is stagnation. The "common folk" were not free like you suggest. They were essentially the property of the Lord. If we still had feudalism, we would be living in the same conditions as we did during the middle ages. This is something I do not want to return to.
Oh please. Save me the condescending bullshittery. I completely reject all forms of marxism. I am a fascist.
This is a completely idiotic comparison. You can't compare feudal society with our modern societies in any honest way, and trying to tell me that "regulations were less" is also moronic, considering the fact that everything being regulated today didn't even exist in any form back during the days of serfdom.
This is a horrible metric. Working a set number of hours does not equal productivity. Also, what exactly were these hours going towards? planting crops and harvesting them? This is a horrible allocation of human potential, especially considering that everything serfs did was automated. Do you think any serf jobs would have been automated in the context of a feudal society? Don't be foolish.
Total and obvious bullshit. Serfs owned no property because they lived on the land of their lord. You can't tell me with a straight face that serfs had (relatively) equal access to wealth and resources as the modern man does.
So feudalism is an inherently inefficient system? What was this time used for? Did it go towards improving production efficiency? Did it go towards developing new technology? Clearly not. In a system like feudalism where a serf has nothing to personally gain from such innovation, no innovation will take place.

You might be able to tell they're Jews, and maybe White isn't the right word, but as you said yourself, Ashkenazi Jews have been interbreeding with Europeans in Europe for hundreds of years, modern Jews can clearly be shown to be more than one distinct ethnic group. Jews with this European history are distinctly whiter and more European looking than their brown counterparts. They are, essentially, closer to White Europeans than to middle eastern Jews

A good analysis of the two primary modes of modernist thought.

For the modernists, the capitalists and communists, individualism and collectivism are not the ends but merely the means to the end which is maximizing productivity and economic efficiency. What better way to achieve maximum productivity and efficiency? A global machine society, wholly programmable and predictable, which is ultimately the end goals of capitalism and communism and why transhumanism attaches itself to both modes of social organization. Both see history and evolution as a progressive line to an end goal, that end goal being their ideal of paradise on earth, an ideal machine society of maximum efficiency, infinite growth, post-scarcity, mankind's apotheosis by progress, markets, and technology. It's all a bunch of childish nonsense.

We, of course, reject both models and substitute our own rooted in race, but race not only in biological/materialist sense, but also socio-cultural, and spiritual race: the tribe, the nation, the civilization and its values and propagation are our concerns. We don't see history or evolution as progressive lines, but as emergent cycles; our end goal isn't some end of history where we achieve super-human mastery over all, but in creating systems and modes of living whereby we can be ever-adapting to the constant flux and survive and thrive through the tumult of the ever-turning cycles of history and civilization. Not a system which seeks to impose a preconceived ideal as truth onto reality and nature, but a system by which to better understand and live in accord with reality and nature, to build ideals founded on the real rather than trying to impose delusional ideals on the real. Individualism and collectivism are both tools when used in proper balance with one another can achieve our ends and we need not confine ourselves to contrived "western/eastern/ notions of individual and collective. The individual can only thrive and enjoy sufficient liberty when afforded the protection of the collective, and the collective can only thrive and propagate when the individuals that make it up are afforded the liberty to develop themselves fully to worthwhile individual ends.

Not him, but using Russia as an example shouldn't be done. Russian soul is completely different from European one. Where Europeans thrive on guilt - be it original sin or liberal privilege - Russian soul thrives on regret and suffering. Russian leadership was always and will always be cruel in comparison to Europe. It's just the way they are. Also note how it was after feudalism and monarchy were abolished. It got even worse.

Do you happen to have an opinion on Stolypin's reforms?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolypin_reform

And yet they are still a serparate ethnic group entirely responsible for communism.

I think you're some pissy European with an inferiority complex who need Americans to not have a culture so you can have a bullshit point to make against them as evidence of your superiority, evidence more for yourself than anyone with whom you are arguing.

Russia can be a cruel land, ask Napoleon. Reforms were planned under the Tsar and Stolypin but the Bolsheviks crashed the plane with no survivers

American culture has largely bee crushed under the weight of modern pop-culture, the same in Australia.

Both had the early fruits of a developing culture but whether this remains…

Borrowed from Egyptians, Phoenicians, and others.

Borrowed from Roman/Byzantine culture, Tsar is a fucking derivative of Caesar for dick's sake.

Borrowed from every culture they came across, got assimilated by most of them, too.

I didn't realize Roan Catholicism was native to Poland.

The Germanics using the Romance language with a bunch of often unrelated subcultures scattered throughout?

That's a pretty big simplification. There is obviously a huge Byzantine influence on Russia but it developed its own traditions out of that.

Same with America. There was a huge European influence on it but it doesn't have a "European" culture

so a bunch of bullshit that I can reject outright. Prove your god exists or stop spouting nonsense.
Why have a monarchy when we can have a system of authoritarianism ran by competent individuals selected based on merit rather than potentially deranged heirs who aren't actually suited to lead in any capacity? Our system of government should not be based around the a monarch, or your specific religious beliefs, but should instead be founded on the propagation and survival of our race.
No. Race and shared blood and identity are the only valid and constant national unifiers. Some man in a high castle is not the glue that holds a people together or makes them want to sacrifice themselves for their fellow countrymen.
And I reject Christianity. It does not convince me. If your system of government can lose its legitimacy in an instant simply from someone asserting they do not believe in your god or "divine right", then it is faulty and should not be pursued.
Race place no part in your belief system whatsoever. You don't even seem to consider it a valid central theme of national unity. The Russian orthodox church encompasses multiple racial groups, and I guarantee you they wouldn't give a shit if all of them mixed up. Such a system is entirely dysgenic and kills the life blood of a civilisation.
Such a system is only passive though. We need an active system built around the identification of race as vitally important to the health of a nation - not something that exists but can be ignored.
why would you assume that? Fusion is very likely to be a viable alternative.
Nor do I. I care for technology for my race's sake. Being a feudalistic Luddite is not in the interests of my race.
Aristocracy is not necessarily needed for this. Why not local councils? Why would a system of democratically elected local officials be a bad thing (as long as its kept to the immediate community, and only has authority over the community's direct interests)?

complete bullshit. Russia is an integral part of European civilisation and has contributed to it immensely in many ways.
This is also completely false. In what way was Russia more cruel to its people than Western Europeans? The only thing different is that Russia developed at a much slower rate due to its size and physical distance from the industrialisation occurring in Western Europe.
This is a shit argument. No one ever tried to claim that communism/bolshevism was better than monarchy in any way.

Quickly glancing over it, it seems to have been an attempt by the Russian leadership to improve the system they had and transform themselves into a genuine modern inustrialised state.

America is pretty firmly rooted in Western/European Civilisation, though. It may be different in many ways, but its connection to Europe firmly exists.

So Holla Forums is full of Western pontificates (sometimes liberal-leaning, other times conservative-leaning) that LARP as NatSocs.

Perhaps so but the theory provides an Absolute foundation for a hierarchical authority that promotes order. Alternative systems have no such foundation and are more likely to degenerate into anarchy.

An heir who has been trained since birth to rule is likely to be competent. Who is going to select the person to lead in a meritocratic system? Democracy was touted as such a system and it has only resulted in shit populist leaders incapable of pursuing long-term policies.

Not in countries which rule over multiple races. War is inevitable and unless there is total extermination of all others based on arbitrary choices on where the line is between "superior" and "inferior" race characteristics it is certain that nations and empires will be somewhat multi-ethnic

Good for you but it important that the supreme ruler is accountable to Something and must rule justly and not act as a mere tyrant or despot

Race mixing didn't happen until it was pushed. Racial pride is cultivated through common racial traditions and not science or law.

As it should be. It allows for freedom unlike the system you are promoting where peoples partners are selected by the government. Not, I also support a form of arranged marriage which tends to put a stop to race mixing anyway.

Can you provide a source for that?

Technology should be used to enhance human life and interaction. It also needs to be sustainable as I don't see any way we are going to colonise any other habitable planet before the Industrial system collapses

Because democracy favours shitty populist politics and most people are too stupid to vote in their own long term interests anyway. I family that rules over an area will want to pass down a functioning region to their children and quality of life, monuments etc. can be a matter of pride and competition between different Aristocratic families

Far less often than modern republican systems. And inefficient at what? Maximum utilization of commerce and industry? The payoff in maintenance of tradition, rather lax central control, strong family structures, good moral health, measured development, and social stability made the cost worth it. Also, corrupt tyrannical lords were far less common and had far less impact than modern republican/democratic officials and extra-governmental authorities, local lords were kept in check and corruption punished by Crown and Church, corruption by Church was punished by Crown and Lord, by Crown was punished by Church and Lord. In addition was the economic power of guilds and freemen, the rights and privileges of the peasants set by custom and canon law. Far less mistreatment then than now. The only thing better now is better technology, which would've happened anyway with time.

Russia is barely Western civilization and even Russia was reforming quickly throughout the 19th century and on the road to industrialization well before the Bolshevik revolution. Tsarist Russia was far less tyrannical than Bolshevik Russia.

That was due to the lack of technological development which was a function of history. Give a feudal society mechanical agricultural implements and it shifts away from agrarian-based economy, though a shift away from agrarian-based society tends to lead to a shift away from feudalism as control of agricultural lands becomes less vital and thus not an important bit of leverage in the battle for a nation's political power.

The shit doesn't hit the fan until a society's economy stops being based on actual, tangible wealth and productive commercial activity and starts being about phony currency and speculation and other financial bullshittery that only exists on paper and in computers and has jackshit to do with tangible reality. When economics become about idealistic theories and cults of personality then things have gone totally batshit.

And yet technological development proceeded throughout the entirety of Western feudalism, population continued to grow even despite strings of plagues and famines and internecine warfare, the borders of western civilization began to expand all over the globe when it was still in feudal socio-economic organization. So how is it stagnation?

In fact, they were, even bonded serfs were only obligated to provide a fixed amount of military service or agricultural work and more often than not the Lord chose to take that in the form of cash taxes rather than the actual service. The peasant was afforded whole seasons of exemption from service so he could focus on his primary duty, the working of agricultural lands, the winter months when the agricultural work was done and the Lord's campaigns were suspended, the peasant was free to pursue his own commerce and pasttimes, especially after the economic boom of the post-plague era.

So says your Marxist professors who you parrot perfectly.

You may self-identify as a fascist, but what you promote is Marxism. Fascism has no inherent opposition to feudalism or monarchy or aristocracy.

The only real regulations affecting the populace were sumptuary laws which were kinda gay, but mostly only affected uppity merchants, and restrictions from poaching in the King's forests. People weren't being spied upon in the market place or their own homes, oh sure heretics were burned, but they were mostly anarchists and communists.

Maximization of productivity is not my primary concern. The less time people are required to labor, the more time they have towards cultivating their families and communities. There are values greater than the economic.

Mass producing consumer electronics and shit sold at big box stores is a better allocation of time than working one's own land with one's own family to provide self-sufficiency?

No, they were required to work the land of their lord, but tended to own their own property which they also worked.

Did new technology develop in feudal Europe? Were their scholars and inventors and innovators? Yes and yes. Primarily, though, this idle time was used on family, community, and culture, a much better use than maximization of productivity for Mr. Shekelwitz.

European Jews? Sure.
What's interesting about that group of European Jews that made communist ideas? They all rejected their Jewish identity, spoke ill of Judaism and other Jews, and essentially outed Jewry in a similar way that pol does.

Said no one. Read the post again.

In the same way Germans and Vandals were a part of Roman civilization. It's cultural colonization. They were tamed, but after the grip loosened, they created their own completely different one.

Read some history. There are whole books written on the subject. Granted, most of them are over a hundred years old.

Monarchial government is a system that promotes family life, culture, hierarchy. There is nothing wrong with productivity either, but work is a necessary evil. – Not that work hours should separate families.

Family life is valuable to monarchies. It should be important to all nations and homelands, since families are crucial to having a stable society. In a system that upholds family structure and society, there is nothing wrong with that.

Better to side with Russia and China than the west.

The west has been more cruel and it's more cruel to this day when it wages economical warfare and bombing campaigns against other non-western people and countries.

I disagree. West has a longer history and a civilization. Russia doesn't (yet). It's like comparing sins of an adult to those of a teenager.

Besides, west is collapsing like all other civilizations. This always results in suffering.

Thanks for posting that pic user. Makes me want my own beautiful family and daughters all the more.

Complete and utter bullshit. Nature is the only thing that provides an absolute foundation for hierarchical authority and order. Unlike your religion, nature is tangible and cannot be ignored or simply rejected. The system you suggest would require 1984 style mind-policing to ensure that wrongthink (i.e. rejection of religious dogma) does not threaten the religiously-founded systems of authority. Your entire hierarchy could collapse as easily as someone deciding they do not believe in your god. What we need is something grounded in the material world as a basis for hierarchy, such as natural law.
A short look at history proves this is complete bullshit. Not every person is capable of leading, regardless of how much training they undergo. Also, a government needs legitimacy to function properly. What tangible legitimacy upholds the authority of your specific monarch? "muh god" is not a valid answer.
Not at all. Democracy is naturally dysgenic and always appeals to the lowest common denominator. Democracy is the opposite of a meritocracy.
These are inherently unsustainable and largely artificial nations. Either one group dominates all others, or you have a power vacuum where every group is vying for control. A multiracial/ethnic nation is an oxymoron and incredibly unsustainable.
Extermination is unnecessary, but clear hierarchies between races are vitally important to ensure the power structure remains in tact and the superior race retains their grip over their empire. A multiethnic empire where one group dominates and suppresses all else is possible, but a multiethnic "nation" where all ethnic identities are equally valid is unsustainable and has no longevity.
The supreme ruler should be accountable to his race and the propagation of his people.
objectively wrong. Did you forget what happened in South America with the Spanish conquerors?
Racial consciousness has to come before racial pride. Without first recognising the central importance of race in a nation, the door is left wide open for potential multiracial subversion or racemixing. Race trumps culture very single time. Without the preservation of ones race, their civilisation inevitably crumbles

Not it shouldn't. The state sholud be actively involved in cultivating feelings of racial pride - not sitting back and letting whatever happens to happen. The state should be directly involved in ensuring the nation's racial stock remains as in tact as possible.
Where did I promote this? Stop being disingenuous. I support the state intervening or banning certain marriages and arrangements, but I don't necessarily support government-determined marriages. I think the government should intervene for the purposes of eugenics, however. People deemed genetically unfit should be barred from reproducing until genetic defects can be targeted and removed through the use of technology.
Just search up the advancements of fusion power. There has been a lot of development happening over recent years. It's not incredibly close to completion, but it's absolutely feasible.
Technology should be used to enhance ones race.
You completely rejected the conditions I gave. Democracy is shit for anything larger than ones local immediately community, because their life is not directly affected, however a local council of elected officials perfectly acceptable and beneficial, because local people no what's best for their communities. Anything on a larger scale is shit. We agree on this.
So your only valid argument in favour of aristocracy is the likelihood of them making monuments? Come on, mate. Why would a local aristocracy be better for the immediate needs of a population than a local group of elected officials? Again, I emphasise local. anything on a larger scale is idiotic and unsustainable.

capitalism to some extent is inevitable, but consolidation is inevitable even without government control simply because some people know how to manipulate market forces more than others
finding that balance between consumers and producers is something that everyone has tried to find and has succeeded and failed to various means
interventionism or state capitalism is the only way

There are no human social laws that we can derive from nature. One person will look at a forest and see a how different classes in a hierarchy can coexist while another person will reduce it to a constant brutal war over the soil between individual organisms. You've made race into your god but what is the purpose of "improving" race? How does it benefit an individual and make his life more meaningful and pleasant?

Where do you stop when it comes to Eugenics? Why not engineer superior mixed race breeds, taking high intelligence from Jews and Asians, strength from niggers etc. This is a completely anti-human and anti-individual perspective that is worse than Bolshevism. Every person becomes a mere repository of genetic information.

The problem with making race into a god is that what we want is High Culture. "Racial purity" is simply a means to this end and it is achieved better under passive cultural methods than under your ahuman system

This. Its culture you want, not genes. And as you can see by looking at white people in culture today, its not genes that matter so much.

Your system is no better than what the Jews want. Complete subjugation of all people as cattle under a "master race". The only difference is that their "master race" is Semitic and Judaic and yours is "muh blue eyes blond hair overman"

Let's review your assumptions;
Modern day tribal states would be something along the lines of terrorist groups in the near east or important tribes in sub-saharan Africa, and in history they would be steppe tribes or raiding barbarians. These tribes have the tendencies to engulf other tribes as they go, taking on local customs and expanding too much, to a point where the system implodes. There can be some trade but it is always limited if not in the hands of strangers. Power is constantly in the hands of men from powerful families. Then again, tribal systems guarantee nothing except mud huts and tyranny. There is very little possibility of social advancement, unless you're in the war business, which inherently means you're going to have a short life-span.

Slavery brings technological stalemate, as it was the case with romans and greeks. It is the job automation of the ancient world, guarantees nothing else than upheaval and idleness.

While I can't say I totally disagree, there is some rectifying to do. The problem with monarchy is stagnation. If there is no possible way of expansion, kings will become unproductive and secluded, therefore causing discontent among the lords and merchants. If there is no external threat, your whole system collapse trying to fight the inner threat.

You can hope for a place in the transportation of goods belonging to the 3 or 4 families controlling the entire trade business or maybe a place in the local militia, but in the end your life depends on trade. If the trade sucks you can bet your life quality will too.

I can't see why my view of the past is wholy colored by bullshit anti-traditional revisionist cultural marxist and cultural capitalist nonsense. I favor capitalism in its most traditional form. Good if it is coupled with the church or whatever spiritual (hopefully non-profit) organization that helps those who are left behind by the inherent unfair nature of it, but there has been no system who have guaranteed more to the citizens than capitalism did.

The problem I see with this is the limited amount of children people have nowadays, and I think that is at the core of the auto-destructive nature of capitalism. If people had more than 2 or 3 kids they would have to cope with unfairness and unequality, which would lead the more capable and competent to take care of business. There is also the constant pussyfication and infantilization of children, but I think that is caused by other things.

Interesting post. It is true that capitalism funnels the common treasure in the hands of a few, but incidently there are no systems in which the wealth is adequatly redistributed. The best example to follow here is the democratic and collective management of municipal affairs in South America, given decent budgets these popular assemblies could break away from the mould.

It would be fine if you remove the jews from the equation.

The "interesting post" came from one of the articles on capitalism from the Orthodox Christian perspective: oodegr.co/english/filosofia/filosofia.htm

As for there being no system that adequately distributes wealth I think this perspective is too focused on materialism. Quality of life is not primarily based on material wealth imo

When the colonists achieved independence, two distinct paths lay before them. Jefferson wanted a complete break with the old mercantilist, capitalist system. He envisioned a republic of smaller republics, based on widespread ownership of farm property and small businesses. He warned of dire consequences if the stockjobbers and bankers ever got the upper hand. He believed that for property rights and freedom to be preserved, political power must be as decentralized as possible.

On the other side of the debate was Alexander Hamilton. He wanted to reproduce English mercantilism on this side of the Atlantic and to beat the English at their own game. He envisioned the United States as an economic and military juggernaut. To accomplish this however, both political power and financial capital would have to be concentrated.

oodegr.co/english/koinwnia/koinwnika/debunking_capitalism.htm

The difference is I envision a Monarchy of smaller monarchies rather than Jefferson's Republic

Humans are a product of nature. Why could we not derive social laws from the very thing that gave rise to our existence? Hierarchy is an inseparable aspect of natural law, and thus should be incorporated into human society in some form. We both agree on this. Where we disagree is the form in which it should be implemented. You seem to think that a hereditary monarchy would be ideal, however I would disagree due to the fact that I reject the legitimacy of a "god-given" authority or "right to rule" in principle, and I believe that the individual most competent and committed to the success and vitality of his race should be granted the power to rule.
Nature is a constant brutal war between all organisms all vying for dominance and survival. War and conflict are inseparable from natural law. We should accept the eternal struggle of nature as a fact of reality and embrace it instead of constantly trying to rebel against it. We would be nothing without struggle.
Belonging to a race gives an individual a place. It gives them purpose. Their race is who they are. Where they belong. What defines them on a deeper spiritual level. They are no longer just individuals, but part of a family of people whom they call their own. The drive to better ones race is the eternal struggle of nature manifest.
Because they are not of my people. They have no connection to the struggle of my race throughout the millennia. I'm not just interested in creating some perfect abstract "human" in some commie materialist sense. My interests lie with creating conditions in which my race can reach its full potential culturally and spiritually. I want my race to continue to prosper and grow on the foundations of Western Civilisation. I have no interest in creating rootless mongrels.

And I never advocated this kind of bullshit, so stop making strawmen. Each individual is not just a repository of genetic information, but a repository of their race's collective struggle. Their person is intrinsically linked with the spirit of their race. Eugenics would be used for the purpose of improving genetic fitness and removing birth defects. This is perfectly acceptable.
High culture can be achieved by cultivating racial spirit. Western Culture is the expression of the European people's racial stock. The greatness and beauty and spirit inherent to western culture is intrinsically linked to our race. What we need is to recognise this fact and not pretend it's some irrelevant technicality. Without putting racial feeling in the minds of our people, we allow for future degeneration and subversion.
What amuhan system? The system you constructed in your fancy little strawmen? I never even outlined a system in the first place. Racial pride should be cultivated actively, not passively. Why shouldn't we actively promote pride in our people, and recognise that high culture springs forth from race?

and here comes the civcuck nationalists. Cultural expression is racial expression. They are not separable. Without the race, the culture simply does not exist. Where do you think Western culture came from? The sky? Lol. European culture is the expression of our racial stock, so to ensure that this civilisation continues to survive, ensuring our racial integrity is paramount.

Subjugation are facts of the human condition that have been committed by every group of people on the planet. All I want is the continued survival, independence, and success of my race, and if this puts me at odds with people who wish to deny me this, then so be it. Conflict will always remain a fact of the human struggle.

more strawmen, I see. Keep being disingenuous. Your loss. I simply believe in racial self-preservation and propagation, and this will naturally put me at odds with people who want to deny me this. In such a situation, what do you expect me to do? Role over and die? Or fight back and subjugate?

Those are your assumptions, not mine. I certainly never did or would say slave-society would bring technological stalement or stagnation, it doesn't and it didn't. Greco-Roman technological society collapsed and stagnated due to changing political configurations in the Near East, Persia, Central Asia and North Africa which severely disrupted trade and Europe underwent successive waves of tribal invaders which wrecked settled, urban civilization.

Not at all, decentralized pastoral nomadic societies and there warrior-aristocracy governing structures were hardly tyrannical and their technology level was much above mudhuts, hell they developed advanced cavalry, the stirrup, the composite bow which sedentary societies never independently developed.

Of course you can't, the blue-pill never sees that hes inside the matrix, dancing to the programmer's code.

Unproven assertion.

You have a very fucked up view of mercantilism I cant even begin to address.

Jefferson's system sounds like National-school mercantilism and Hamilton's sound's like British free-trade capitalism.

i'm going to sleep now

Cultural expression is obviously rooted in the race (obviously because ideas don't exist without a physical brain to think them) but to say that culture = race is a huge mistake. Purely white people are capable of displaying very different cultures; just look at the way some white people adopt black culture. Clearly their biological whiteness doesn't prevent them from changing their culture.

Being connected doesn't mean they are the same thing. Reducing culture to simply biology is oversimplified and frankly wrong.

"Capitalism" is a method of attack against society created and used by Marxists. Both those who call themselves Capitalists (the Marxists' useful idiots) and those who call themselves Marxists are children of this evil worldview.

Everyone that enjoys the concept of owning their own shit, actually.

Perhaps, perhaps not but projecting anthropomorphic "laws" onto nature is retarded either way. Without God there is no objective law/morality/purpose. Also how do you know who is most suited to rule?

nope. No reason to accept your idea of "natural" law any more than there is a reason for you to accept my God. If natural law is so clear and part of our nature why can I reject it?

Bullshit. Race gives people certain characteristics that are advantages/disadvantages but it doesn't provide meaning or purpose unless you make it into an idol. There is no reason for anyone to accept this idol as there are many others such as hedonistic pleasure, money etc.

Then why are so incredibly obsessed with race? The "white race" is quite diverse due to mixing of various white peoples throughout history. No doubt you would have put a stop to this and tried to seperate people in abstract "pure breeds".

If you would actually put your perspective down clearly I wouldn't have to speculate merely on your adoration of race and nature.

A race-obsessed nation that sterilizes its people in the name of purity and prevents all immigration and emigration with a totalitarian government that breaks apart undesirable marriages. Sounds like paradise mate, where do I sign up?

This is why you don't make a religion out of race kids.

THIS

Quite true but what alternative? Jews have been setting up what we have now for a long, long time.

Bullshit, people owned their own shit before capitalism

Private ownership is the essence of the concept of capitalism.

What other economic systems exist that allow the peasant classes to own stuff like land and buisinesses?

People owned private property for millennia prior to the onset of capitalism. The Roman recognized private ownership, as did the Greeks and the Jews. Private property is not a modern invention. Classical republicanism depended on the private ownership of property and, therefore, on the virtues of the property holding citizen class.

Then they were capitalist.

Neither is capitalism.

You can have private ownership without capitalism but you can't have capitalism without private ownership. They are not the same thing.

The west is collapsing because it's becoming totalitarian and hyper-agressive.

I don't give a shit what westerners choose to do in their own countries, but you don't have monopoly on other civilizations.

Care to explain?

Or am I supposed to take your assertions as gospel?

"Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#History

"In an agrarian society the means of production is the soil and the shovel. In an industrial society it is the mines and the factories, and in a knowledge economy the offices and computers. In the broad sense, the "means of production" includes the "means of distribution" such as stores, the internet and railroads."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

Frankly it often seems like the National Socialists on this board want to perpetuate this hyper-aggression and paranoia as if there is no way that different countries and peoples can share ideas and culture.

Personally I find Monarchy to be the best system for all people despite religious and cultural differences.

Backs up exactly what I said. To have capitalism, you need private ownership. But you do not automatically have capitalism if you have private ownership.

I don't think you'd consider Nazi Germany as capitalist but they still allowed private ownership. In the old European world and in Ancient Rome, citizens could own land. That predates the 14th century birth of capitalism said in the wikipedia link.

The Byzantine Empire is a good example of good government and economics. An interesting series on its economy can be found here: voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/the-economy-of-byzantium-state-intervention-and-voluntary-exchange-part-one-agriculture/

So, who owned everything beforehand?

I must assert that you do, in fact, have capitalism if you have the private ownership of the means of production.

As that is the literal meaning of capitalism.

The term "Capitalism" wasn't coined intukl about the 1400's or whatever, but the system of private ownership of the means of production is capitalism.

The reason that the term wasn't coined earlier, is that private ownership of the means of production is a relatively recent event.

Before that, most everything belonged to the state or what have you.

But, just for sake of argument, name an economic system other than capitalism that allows the private ownership of the means of production.

Distributism

Our friend seems to be making a similar mistake to the one described in - logical reductionism.

X is based on Y does not mean X = Y

Basic logical fallacy.

The idea in distributism is that the legal ownership of the means of production in the economy is distributed as widely as possible in the population. This implies a double comparison and contrast. On the one hand, as in capitalism, distributism honors private property and rewards intelligence, hard work, and entrepreneurialism. But simultaneously, and differing from the usual structure of capitalist governments, a distributist state takes measures to discourage the endless accumulation of wealth in the hands of a minority. While capitalism believes in private ownership, it also believes that only a few people should own what really matters, that is, the ways of producing money and goods. Distributism is not content, therefore, with great numbers of people owning their own homes or having shares in the stock market; they need to have real control over the land, farms, factories, and institutions that produce money and goods. On the other hand, as in socialism, the state remains the most powerful entity in the country; the state does not permit plutocrats and corporations to usurp its authority, as they ceaselessly attempt to do in capitalist countries. But simultaneously, and differing from the common ideal of a socialist economy, distributism is realistic enough to acknowledge that some are still going to be rich and some are still going to be poor. The rich are not automatically dispossessed, nor are the poor put on the welfare rolls.

Although is sounds utopian, a distributist economy was a common reality in the past. It is the natural form an economy takes when its societal structures are relatively simple and local. Imagine a primitive society. In such a society people accumulate wealth by the work of their own hands either on farms or in small industries. Some people do get wealthy, through the combination of hard work, intelligence, inheritance, and divine providence (usually but wrongly called “good luck”). But when trade is limited to an area the size of a county (a few hundred square miles), even the wealthiest people will generally not become vastly wealthier than their neighbors. Vast accumulations require theft, slavery, war, or some other form of exploitation. Numerous examples from history illustrate this kind of simple, local economy. The Roman Republic had a distributist economy before the rise of the Roman Empire. A distributist system gradually developed out of the ruins of the Roman Empire in the Middle Ages in Western Europe. When England began to colonize North America, people thought that England’s economy was still distributist, though they never used such a word for it and the dispossession of the monasteries had already steered their economy on the course toward capitalism. In early America, the economic system of the English colonies in the North was largely distributist; in the English colonies in the South, it was mixed with a servile state. Today, with the coincidence of modern technologies and the tradition of law and polity for the past century and more, capitalism has eclipsed distributism in the United States. But distributism is not forgotten. Remnants of the old distributist order remain in practice, in law, and in the collective memory of the nation. The importance given to personal home ownership, the “family farm,” and small business; the current movement toward eating locally grown food; the continuing appeal of arts and crafts as full-time occupations – all are living remnants of distributism.

From here: incommunion.org/2010/11/24/distributism-a-primer-for-orthodox-christians/

The kind of things that people were talking about in the years before Mr Marx: industry, religion, colonies.

I already did, unless you consider Nazi Germany capitalist, in which case that's fair enough. Capitalism means more than just mere ownership of private property.

What I said originally is the same as this analogy. Every man is an ape, but not every ape is a man.

He did… Nazi Germany, Ancient Rome; private ownership of property has existed for thousands of years.

Under an Orthodox Monarch this is basically utopia

"developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century"

"According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right,"

Which means that the state will steal property from one person, to give to another….

Socialism.

Try harder next time.

Yeah, except that your analogy was wrong.

So Ancient Rome and Nazi Germany are capitalist?

No its not socialism read the essay. What it means is that the state prevents Jews from accumulating billions of dollars through jewish bullshit and fucking over hard working white people.

Ancient Rome was distributist (although the name for what they did is new, the system isn't)

Wat.

The fourth system is distributism, but this is a strikingly misleading name. Belloc sometimes suggested calling it “the proprietary state,” which would be much less misleading. When people hear the term “distributist,” they often tend to think of a system in which money is taken away from the rich and distributed to the poor (who generally are thought not to deserve it). In other words, people mistake distributism for socialism. That is not the intention of the name.

Distributism’s goal is not to overthrow and destroy the capitalist system. It is too obviously successful and productive. Besides, the socialists tried that and failed. But the limitations and injustices of capitalism are real. The goal in contemporary distributism is to promote, enact, and entrench distributist ideals. The distributist hope is that at some point the scale will tip, and what is now a capitalist system will become a predominantly distributist system with capitalist elements still remaining within it. The goal is not to establish socialism, to give undue power to the state, or to play Robin Hood, but to change laws, especially regarding taxation, so that it becomes very difficult for money and power to become concentrated in the hands of the few and easier for ordinary people to own their own farms, workshops, businesses and industries. Distributism is economic democracy.

So, people without property can sue the state (the taxpayers) for property?

omg, dat copypasta.

Is to be stealth socialism, right?

"Distributism" is how Roman Catholics (very similar to your religion) guilt germanic ethnicities including Anglo-Saxons into giving out handouts. It's Red as Red can be. Ivan, you dirty red

why rewrite shit when others have said it better. The link to the whole thing is already posted but anons hate reading

Copypasta shill, confirmed.

Because its better to have a capitalist system where wealth tends to end up in the hands of a small minority

Now who could they be…

omg you got me!

Yep, same thing

As opposed to communism, where the wealth is ENFORCED into the hands of a small minority…

Or socialism, where the government collects all of the people's wealth, and gives it to a small minority, eh?

Capitalism is the only system that actually gives people a CHANCE to own shit.

So, who owns all of the land in a monarchy, again?

Let's shout Jew whenever somebody tells me off!

Good idea.

You communist faggot.

see

...

I'm not a communist and I'm not a capitalist. I know this is hard for Americans to understand but that's how it is.

Guilt trips are so 20th and 19th Century.

The government already distributes your money. It goes straight from your taxes to the pockets of Jews who need to be "bailed out".

Go home, Ivan. This isn't your place.

On the one hand, as in capitalism, distributism honors private property and rewards intelligence, hard work, and entrepreneurialism. But simultaneously, and differing from the usual structure of capitalist governments, a distributist state takes measures to discourage the endless accumulation of wealth in the hands of a minority.

Go home kike. Your D&C won't work here

I think I get the general idea, but not how to implement it in practice. Let's say you wanted to do this in the US, what measures could be necessary? Don't say "we wouldn't let the kikes have all the wealth", it's the how that makes me wary.

The goal in contemporary distributism is to promote, enact, and entrench distributist ideals. The distributist hope is that at some point the scale will tip, and what is now a capitalist system will become a predominantly distributist system with capitalist elements still remaining within it. The goal is not to establish socialism, to give undue power to the state, or to play Robin Hood, but to change laws, especially regarding taxation, so that it becomes very difficult for money and power to become concentrated in the hands of the few and easier for ordinary people to own their own farms, workshops, businesses and industries. Distributism is economic democracy.

I've put the essay that summarizes distributism in the thread but here it is again: incommunion.org/2010/11/24/distributism-a-primer-for-orthodox-christians/

Imo it would have a lot of allies among greeny types so it can appeal to a wide range of people depending on how it is presented

Aw, but you're sensitive aren't you? This is Anglosphere, and your foreign "orthodox" religion and your begging for scraps are plain weird.

It gives fewer advantages to Corporations and more to small businesses and farmers. Its closer to what the founding fathers of America wanted.

I'm half anglo, half White Russian (as in anti-red) living in Australia. Thats why I'm here, because I care about the West as well as the East.

Also

Pot calling the kettle black much

Also more regional power whether it is in States (republican) or small areas ruled by the Aristocracy (monarchy)

...

How so?

Exterminating the jews.

There's no other way capitalism could be sustainable.

...

We aren't talking about Capitalism we're talking about Distributism which is infinitely better (and probably closer to what Hitler intended too).

We need Welfare Pogroms not Welfare Programs

Hitler didn't care all that much about the economy. He did make moves towards what could have become Distributism in the future.

I like how these sound. The problem I foresee is Corporations influencing policies until the situation was reversed. And then it would stop being distributism, sure, but greed is real and there isn't a riot every time the government decides to do something against the population's best interests.

Distributism puts great emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity. This principle holds that no larger unit (whether social, economic, or political) should perform a function which can be performed by a smaller unit. The idea is that the state (my preference is a monarchy) actively works to prevent too much power being concentrated in small groups of plutocrats and corporations.

It promotes more cooperative systems like guilds which ideally helps to provide more local production and higher quality artisan products rather than mass production and mass consumption,

The Byzantine Empire is a great example of this and there is a multi-part series on it here: voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/the-economy-of-byzantium-state-intervention-and-voluntary-exchange-part-one-agriculture/

bump

No, you just completely misunderstand what they are. Laws of nature are simply truths inherent to the natural world that shape and define reality. Humanity should strive to discover these realities and accept them, not tr to rebel against them. Inequality land hierarchy are both facts of nature that cannot be rebelled against.
Wrong. For one, where did the concept of god come from in the first place? To someone who rejects the idea of your specific god/religion, it seems more feasible that moral codes and virtuous acts developed through evolution to cement actions most beneficial to the function and survival of an in-group. Why is stealing morally wrong? Not just because god said so, but because it causes a breakdown of trust in a community and leads to dysfunction that ultimately weakens the resolve of that in-group. Why is killing morally wrong? For the exact same reason - it breaks down social trust and weakens a community from within.
Well candidates could be singled out based on the moral content of their characters, love for their race/people, intelligence, charisma, leadership skills, etc. etc.
Complete garbage. Natural law is inherent to the natural world itself and are simply facts that structure our reality regardless of ones individual decision to accept them. Equality will not be any more possible simply by refusing to accept that it isn't. The difference is that your god exists entirely in a different realm and has no tangible evidence to support its existence. What reason do I have to accept your specific god over any of the other thousands of gods both dead and alive?
It's not that rejecting natural law is possible, it's that doing so, especially on a society-wide scale, will result in the collapse of that society. One cannot rebel against the laws of nature that led rise to their very existence.
Completely idiotic thing to say. Race is massively different to hedonistic pleasure and money. Accepting race as a fact and working to uplift ones own race satisfies the primal human need to belong to a group, and gives something to an individual that's greater than themselves to strive to improve. Human societies have always been based on race in some capacity, whether it was acknowledged or not, because that's what functions the best.
I don't just want to preserve my race for race's sake, or create some meaningless abstract individual, but to ensure the survival of European civilisation and its further growth. I recognise that every European ethnicity has contributed to this higher culture and civilisation, and thus I honestly don't see much reason to obsess over impractical "purity" within racial lines, but instead to insure that the European nature of our identity remains in tact and unbroken.
Where did I promote this in any capacity? Again with the idiotic strawmen. I said that people with genetic defects or other illnesses should not allowed to have children in order to ensure the fitness of our people is maintained. In a society where people are no longer subject to natural selection, which would otherwise weed out problems like congenital heart disease, why is it unacceptable for the government simply to say that people born with such problems shouldn't be allowed to reproduce?
Another retarded strawman I never advocated for. You should really get better at this. Where did I say all immigration or emigration would be banned? I genuinely challenge you to find me the specific line in which I promoted this. If I was in power, immigration would be limited to only those of European racial stock. Ethnically specific immigration should be the norm in any healthy society, because this is what produces a functional nation.
Simply disallows them from propagating genetic defects and diseases. Tell me again what's wrong with this? Do you want to create a society filled with genetically sick people in need of medical attention?

Why do you keep trying to force your shitty Christian demoniation? Why would anyone want to live under your orthodox theocracy?

Because Distributism is the best economic system and Monarchy is the best form of government. The Byzantine Empire created some of the greatest art and architecture that there has ever been.

Localized economies with cooperatives such as guilds produce higher quality culture and products. Modern mass production and mass consumption is terrible for culture. It has produced crappy "pop-culture" which is basically the mental retardation of the people

...

The 'argument from reason' seems like a good reason to ignore your "laws of nature" idea:

1.No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes.

2.If materialism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes.

3.Therefore, if materialism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred.

4.If any thesis entails the conclusion that no belief is rationally inferred, then it should be rejected and its denial accepted.

5.Therefore materialism should be rejected and its denial accepted.

As for race, it is important but nothing you have said makes a convincing argument for a government that takes such proactive measure against race-mixing. The passive method of people sticking within a common culture is fine.

As for culture, European culture has been hugely influenced by non-whites. Jesus Christ (a semite), St Augustine (a Berber), various musical instruments (violin) with Eastern origins etc.

This doesn't answer my question, friendo. Why would anyone want to live under your orthodox theocracy? Why does your specific brand of orthodoxy somehow make all of that possible?
WEW. Don't tell me you're the idiot who thinks that it was Christianity that made Europe great, not Europeans that made Christianity great. You think art and architecture were the product of Christianity? Hilarious. I guess that completely negates all of the beatuiful artwork and architecture produced by Romans and Greeks, right? What about Renaissance Europe? The art and architecture produced then was also incredible, and that had n orthodox influence at all.
You just sound like you're promoting communism-lite.
I agree completely. our modern culture of mass-consumption and trival consumerist "pop culture" is causing the death of our racial spirit and the withering away of our civilisation. That's why we need to reignite a flame of racial pride within the people to give them something greater than their own hedonistic desires to want to uplift.

Modern conservatism is the best on that chart

Distributism is catholic communism.
Back to leftypol

Schlomo pls

Catholic*

Cancer

anti-capitalism is niggering thievery
enough said

It's not about picking the side you "like" the most, I'm not a woman. It's about what makes the most sense to me, and I'm an Aristotelian guy.

As I pointed out, historically the Byzantine Empire is the best example to follow. Its economics were very good. As for Christianity itself it is the Traditional religion of Europe (inb4 LARPaganism)

I don't think it was solely Christianity that made Europe great but it was an important contributing factor.

Bullshit, you've clearly read nothing that has been posted. In fact Hitler's Reich probably would have developed a Ditributist economy

You say racial pride, I say Christianity. Either way Monarchy and Distributism are still the way to go.

Capitalism is a system that takes taxes from hard-working whites and "bails out" Jews on Wall St. Distributism is the way to go.

The government and the federal reserve bailed out the large banks in 08, mate. You'll have a hard time pretending that government wealth redistribution is capitalist.

You know, Comrade Francis is big on wealth redistribution as well as distributism, which springs from the same poisoned jesuit well as him.

State capitalism is defined as socialism, you shit flinging fucktard.

Also, any manner of taxation is taking from hard-workers to bail out vile parasites. Always. No exception. The more taxation, the less capitalism.

There are loads of different types of "Capitalism". Without government intervention in the "free market" there is nothing to stop price fixing or monopolies forming

Nope. Just more or less of it.

Yes, there is:
1) if no one buys, no one sells. And if monopoly is what buyers want, their money, not yours, you looting nigger

2) if you can't compete with monopolies, either:
2a) you're not able to compete with too high prices, which means you're not as good as them, and should just shut your safe-space yearning loser ass
2b) their prices are not too high, so all the best for the consumers
2c) it's not free market

Absolutely no socialism at all is rather harsh and inhuman though. White people should take care of their own in their own countries

I don't recall ever arguing for pure materialism or the rejection of all spirituality in its entirety, so I don't think the "argument from reason" properly applies in this case. There very well be a supernatural being that created everything we know, and I'm sure there's a deeper spiritual aspect of humanity (expressed differently based on race), but all of this doesn't negate the existence of natural law. We are constructs of the material world, thus we are subject to its eternal laws. The existence of a supernatural doesn't change this fact.
I understand now why the LARPagans call you people christcucks. You completely reject the importance of race in favour of your baseless faith. Race is the source from which all other societal expression springs. Your racial stock determines the qualities of your nation and the level of cultural expression it is capable of. Race is not just some technicality that can be ignored - it's the lifeblood that forms the backbone of any healthy society. Humans are biologically predisposed towards tribalism, and racial feeling is the only tangible thing that can unite people. superficial cultures may come and go, values may change, but an unbroken racial line is what keeps the spirit of a people alive.
No it's not, because it places race as something secondary to culture, which is a naive and faulty assessment to make, and it suggests that ones civilisation and higher cultural expression is not intrinsically reliant on the integrity of ones race.
So you're chocking up the European cultural expression to the influence of some foreign non-whites? Please stop trying.

Riight. So whats to stop JewCorp from lowering its prices super low to destroy and buy up smaller competitors and then raising its prices super high when its the monopoly?

There are things that people need to buy like food retard. In Australia Supermarkets band together and shortchange agricultural producers meaning only huge Jewish megacorporations get involved in Agriculture and small farmers go bankrupt.

Additionally nothing is stopping Corporations from sending every job to China and India and using the virtual slave-labor there.

You're mistaking two things:

- charity, ie make a gift of your own flesh, which can only be voluntary, and which is not only desirable, but raises the giver

- solidarity, ie being an interchangeable part of a holistic entity, which debases the giver through the negation of his self

Destroy the competition? The moment they rise their prices, competition can be cheaper again: and if they do the cat and mice game for too long, they'll start losing money. And no one wants to lose money, except socialist asswipes (who don't care too much, as they don't produce wealth, but instead loot it from actual workers).

Also, if all your small farmers can't manage to set up a distribution business of their own, it just means they're shit at this job, and should only blame their incompetent selves.

As to the slave labor, if you have nothing better to offer than the Indian and Chinese primitives, it means you're not any better than them. So why should I pay you more, you little fabulously sparkling sissy? Rather stick your safe space deep up yours, you less than worthless entitled parasite.

So you believe that there is spirituality yet you completely discount it in favour of the nebulous and undefined "natural law". Are you saying that all philosophy must be based on "natural law"?

Right, thats why so many white people act like niggers today. Because its the wonderful expression of their race. Why don't you just admit that it is a mix of nature/nurture?

Clearly I am not but they did have an influence and a rather large one. Sharing of ideas internationally is fine as long as national culture is preserved.

Thats how it should be. A white person brought up as a monkey is going to act like a monkey (see outdoors, society related). Civilization is cultural not racial, read Oswald Spengler.

Of course there can be charity but you can't have a meritocracy without some socialism because some people are just going to be too poor to get anywhere without help.

It's not up to the poors to make any welfare demand. Else, it's just theft.

It's up to the ones paying, to decide who, how much and under which conditions, they'll help. And if you're not one of them, please just shut your ass, and already be grateful.

No need to involve any state in any of that. At best, they'll just take for themselves a lot of the money they were supposed to distribute.

At worst, they'll actively fund the most vile and worthless parasites, and use them to keep the power, at the greater expense of those being looted from.

I'm very well off compared to most people of my generation.

Not in a Monarchy.

So there cannot be any public services? Society involves a common good that is supported. What do you believe that is?

Monarchies legitimacy doesn't lie in ceremonial circus.

It lies in enough people accepting their rulers, same as with any other ruling system. The rest is just folklore.

As to society, it's just an idea. Just like common good. And ideas do not exist, by definition.

People, in turn, do exist. And what they've earned, through dedicating part of their lives to, it also exists.

When you forcefuly deny them any of that without them agreeing, you're not even part of the social solution: you're the root of the social problem.

I don't have anything against public services, by the way. As long as you can opt out, I'm very fine with whichever stupidity anyone may want to try for the billionth time.

How is the competition going to come back when they are bankrupt/bought out mate? This isn't theoretical its happening now and this is under a regulated market, it'd be 10 times worse in a fucking "free market".

Small farmers, even working together can't compete with a huge corporation especially when it puts pressure on them. Basically you support Jews mate.

You sound like a fucking communist but in reverse, any protection of actual human beings against massive corporations is "exploitation".

talk about being a grateful cuck

An you support entitled failures, SJW. If small farmers can't band and set up their own distribution business, their problem, not mine.

Even: serves them right, for bitching instead of pulling their shoulders out of their own asses (born a Frenchfag, even though not having been relying on this hopeless shithole for long: I know all there is to know about your poor little farmers- those from my native country gobble pretty much all of EU farming funds, and still couldn't manage to sell water in the desert).

Grew up in a socialist shithole of a country. Was even born in an officially communist small city. I know the more you try to forcefully help people, the worse it'll end. First hand. I have nothing more to learn about it than I already know.

I have nothing against helping others, mind you (I probably, and willingly, give more to charity than the vast majority of people). As long as it's voluntary. That little "detail" changes everything.

People are sometimes too quick to fight "the system". In a way this is just a continuation of the hippie culture of hating on the "the system" or "the man".

There is nothing preventing anyone from investing his income in ownership of the largest of corporations. Stocks are free for anyone to own, convienient and free tools known as index funds make this simple.

Capitalism is just a system of recognizing that people are allowed to own property. Just like you dont read the Bible for advice on repairing you car, you should not turn to capitalism to recieve answers about what to do about the poor, the degenerate etc.

Just like people ask what to do about automatization removing blue collar jobs, I believe that the best solution to any percieved injustice in the current system is best solved by learning a bit about investing, and using the free tools to do it.

tl;dr : dont be a fucking hippie always blaming the system for everything, blame yourself and your fellows for failing to understand and use the system properly

No capitalism is more than that. People also own property in distributism. The differences are in government policies

The freer the market, the most ideally distributed the wealth.

Too lazy or incompetent to accumulate wealth? Well, sounds like you don't deserve much of it anyway.

And vice versa.

Theres nothing wrong with breaking up oligarchies and plutocracies. Unless you like the situation in Russia and think International Corporations should run National governments?

Everything in that picture is degenerate. 1950s america was degenerate. Its what led to the boomers. Get used to it.

Distributionism has good points, and can be seen as a development of capitalism. I was thinking more on the capitalism communism axis, where is any variant of communism, property is not something that is respected. The "people" (the state) can always take your property from you, because it doesn't really belong to you.

Modern capitalism has a chronic case of government interference, stifling competition and promoting oligopols. That being said, laissez-faire systems have flaws too. I still don't see anything preventing the poor proleteriat from just buying ownership in all these corporations, evening out the negative effects of oligopols.

If they don't force you into anything (like having laws protecting them at your expense passed, eg intellectual" "property", costly though useless regulations [funnily enough, most generally under the pretext of the "greater good"] which smaller business can't overcome, etc), yes, there's everything wrong with buggering others (whoever they are).

When you're actually being buggered (!=feel buggered- huge difference), I agree with you, though.

Yeah, life has flaws as well. So be it. Still no reason to start collecting dragon dildos and asking for safe spaces.

Precisely. Though having grown up in a socialist shithole, I see reasons for them not to: they actually do not want to. They're not poor at random.

Each time I've seen unions (fun fact: the French word for that is "syndicat"- coincidence?) destroy the business employing them (quite common, in France, to say the least), and be proposed to buy the remains for themselves to run their mean of production, they fled like rats.

The "System" is Monarchy. Every revolution against the Old Order resulted in a worse government and worse living conditions

Why? The Byzantine Empire never compared to the success and strength of later European powers that employed different systems. Why should we accept your specific system?
No. It was Europeans that made christianity great. Through Europeanisation, Christianity was turned into a symbol of strength, when in reality it values weakness and feebleness.
Whenever someone starts talking about cooperatives, by communism-alerts start going off.
No. Stop trying to equate the two. They are not comparable. Race is tangible, your baseless religious beliefs are not. Human societies naturally structure themselves around racial lines. Ethnic tribalism remains a reality regardless
And yet you fail to provide me with any reason to accept Monarchy. You just assert it as "the way to go", yet never make any valid arguments in favour of it.
Don't be this fucking retarded

The only reason they were "better" is that they had more advanced technology. They would have been even better with the same system as the Byzantine Empire. Why should we accept your gaycuck system which you haven't even described or given a historical example of?

Nature and nurture, already covered this

Is there something wrong with people freely choosing to work together. I don't want to abolish private property I want to encourage it!

Not in the religious sense you treat it. Theres nothing to stop the creation of a mixed Asian-white race that is just as tangible and bound by "natural law" by which I assume you mean scientific facts such as gravity.

No, you just can't be fucked reading the links I already posted. I'm not copypasting several essays for your sake

Spirituality does not mean your specific brand of orthodoxy or even Christianity at all
No, I'm saying that it cannot reject it. Any philosophy that rejects reality can be incredibly destructive if followed. Any philosophy should recognise the existence of natural law.
Superior races can be brought down to the level of inferior races, but inferior races cannot be brought up to the level of superior races. No amount of nurture will bring shitskin society up to the level of white society. Pic related.
No it shouldn't. Race comes before culture every time.
What a naive statement. Where does civilisation come from then? The greatness of a civilisation is determined by the greatness of the race that produced it. The survival of a civilisation is dependent on the survival of the race. What you're spouting is egalitarian nonsense. Pic related again

Under distributism corporations etc. are not permitted to be more powerful than the state. This preserves nationalism. The economy is decentralized which leads to more local cultural output.

There are loads of arguments

Absolutely disgusting.

No, but organised tradition is superior to "spiritual but not religious" and I don't see many other options for the West

Tell me what natural law IS then

No shit mate, a nigger isn't going to ever be at the level of a white but a "cultured" (what passes for it at least) nigger is superior to an uncultured nigger

You put far too much emphasis on race and far too little on culture imo, seeing as you admit that culture can bring a race down. I'm not saying that race isn't important but it isn't the whole meaning of life either

Yes, and great non-white civilisations have built on their races, however a certain level of race eg "white", "black", "asian" contains many sub-races united by common cultural features

No more than workshop-made goods you pleb. Ever buy something that was made in a 1st world nation? We actually put effort into our products. Automation just means we make more of them.

You gods forsaken commies - the problem with capitalism this century has been that the Judah have promoted the expansion of government.

If federal + state + local taxes

The issue is with what people think of when they see the word "capitalism"

to normal people: supply and demand, voluntary trade, and commerce

to socialists/leftists: specific government system (more like state capitalism/consumerism) that was defined by socialists in order to create a strawman for the socialists attack

too many people here fall for the second definition, with an extra addition of claiming that Jews somehow invented markets or something.

I wasn't arguing against distributism. In fact, the economic system sounds quite positive and similar to many fascist policies. What you haven't provided a valid argument for is monarchy.

People will not return to Christanity. It's simply not going to happen. The days of blind faith in the supernatural are over, and to enforce it would be harmful to the nation as a whole. Our nations need a new spirituality based on racial consciousness,radical self-improvement, and the acceptance of the eternal struggle of nature.
I said already. Natural law is a basically underlying realities inherent to nature that all life is subject to. Inequality is a fact of natural law and should not be rebelled against or ignored like modern Liberalism tries to do, but embraced and acknowledged. Hierarchy is also a fact of nature that should be embraced and incorporated into society and not deemed "oppressive" like marxists always do.
Yes, but niggers as a group are incapable of reaching the level of cultural expression produced by Europeans. European Civilisation is a direct expression of the European race. Our civilisation entirely fall apart if our race were replaced with foreigners.
My argument is that race underlies everything else. Race always comes before culture, because the quality of a culture will always be dependent on the capacity of the race that produces it. I don't regard culture is irrelevant - far from it - I just recognise what forms culture and what is required to maintain it, and that is a homogeneous and pure in a practical sense racial group that is able to unify people in the most primal and instinctual way. If culture is the scaffolding around which the whole society is buil, then race is the foundation on which the scaffolding itself is built. Your scaffolding might be weakened and even collapse, but as long as your foundation remains firm and strong, a building of equal quality is always capable of being rebuilt.
I agree with this, however you cannot deny that there exists a greater European culture or civilisation that supersedes each individual European ethnicity. Also, because all of these sub-ethnicities belong to the same race, their integration into a single unified identity based on shared racial blood and culture is perfectly functional and valid.

Fair enough, we seem to agree on most things except the idea of a Christian Monarchy (which doesn't surprise me). You acknowledge that hierarchies should be embraced which I agree with and of course I accept the underlying nature of the world (how can I live on this world and not do so?).

Now you reject a Monarchy and claim you want a meritocratic system where the best man for the job becomes Fuhrer. This doesn't sound too different to an Elective Monarchy which I would accept (although I would prefer a hereditary system).

The major point we disagree on is the acceptance of Christianity and we aren't going to change each others minds here so I think overall we are fairly similar in what we want.

At least we've reached a conclusion to this argument on somewhat equal terms.