National Socialism

but guess what he did for the USSR? industrialized it and brought it to become a global superpower.
hitler was a dumb tard who rekt his own country and killed 6 million jews for absolutely no reason, at least stalin's death count can be justified as to kill counter-revolutionaries

At least the alt right finds new ways to be annoying.

I'll ask you the same question.

And Hitler didn't do the same or more for Germany?
How do you justify Ukraine?

Refer to pic #2

Hitler openly proclaimed his form of socialism was not against private property on countless occasions. This made his criticism of Western plutocracies effectively worthless. Though the NSDAP was not a slave to the bourgeoisie, it was still a slave to capital.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

At least, I hope that's not what you're arguing here.

no

No, she was an instigator of the failed revolution in Germany.

False equivalence.

defense of private property is defense of the bourgeoisie

private property is merely a means of extracting surplus value

it deprives workers of the sweat of their brow, so to defend that system using that platitude is meaningless

You come across like you've never read anything about what you're criticizing

it's amazing how many people discuss economics without first knowing what "private property" means in the context of economic discussions

molyneux has even made a career of it

If a man creates an industry he is entitled to reap the benefits of that. The Not Socialist doctrine acknowledges this and ensures that there is ample wealth extracted for both.

There should be wealth disparity. What there shouldn't be is abuse based on it.

If an individual builds a factory and employs people to run it with their own wealth there is not an implied depravation there.

Kill yourself.

No individual builds a factory. He borrows money from a bank that uses depositers' funds in order to hire a construction crew to fabricate a building on a site that they will be barred from as soon as the structure is completed.

...

Hitlerists =/= [email protected]/* */
I don't like Hitlerists but I respect [email protected]/* */ as comrades in arms.

...

...

Sure.

What? By denying others the right to use his factory without first selling all they make there to him at a fraction of the price he sells it to others he is depriving others. By not allowing others to use that land for their own projects he is depriving others.

Building the factory is commendable and should of course be compensated, but doing so should not afford you some special right to the factory and land, especially if you didn't physically build the fucking thing yourself, and you can bet nobody does all the mining, refining, transport, building design, site clearing, construction, development of production technologies, building of production machines etc etc etc themselves, but only some small part of all this.

"a man" never creates industry and never has

workers have created all industry that exists

"there should be fire but it should not burn"

Then nationalize the banks.

So you're working under the assumption that anything that could be built is already owned by the state and comes under its control the moment it is completed.

The creator of the automobile is the creator of that industry.

Please kill yourself.

Pardon? What does the state have to do with what i said? I did not even assume a state existed for the purpose of my example.

On the wealth inequality thing, it is not that people should have the same amount of wealth. it is that the concept of wealth should not exist. The concept of being permitted to a certain amount of things based on a system (in todays world, mostly currency) should not exist if possible. But whilst we work towards that lofty goal (as scarcity would have to be almost nonexistent for most things to achieve this) wealth should all come from an equal source, labor, rather than the distinction between those who sell their labor and those who "own" things and extract an income from that ownership.

The inequality is not inherently in the size of the wealth, but in its source.

G O M M I E S B T F O
O
M
M
I
E
S

B
T
F
O

State =/= government

Please explain the logistics of this, I'd imagine there would have to be administrators

I've been exposed :^(

The whole basis of ancapism is redefining words and then claiming that others are redefining them.

The banks are not the only broken link in that chain. Firstly, there is the supposed entrepreneuer himself. His ultimate contribution to the project amounts to saying, "that looks like a nice place for a factory." The factory does not come into existence because of him. It comes into existence because of the construction crew. Despite having done none of the actual work, the wannabe boss collects all of the surplus value subsequently created in the factory (after the bank's cut), while the construction crew sees no benefit past their wages which are worth significantly less than the value of their labor. Likewise, the workers at the factory who produce all of the value created therein receive only a small fraction of the value of what they have created. They do not need the boss, but they are obliged to pay him anyway.

Let us not forget that the bank, nationalized or not, will be collecting most if the value from the operation despite having contributed absolutely nothing to it. It is entirely superfluous, yet it makes all the profit with none of the risks. The financial system is a deliberate inefficiency.

And what about the land that the factory is built upon? By what authority does the seller have possession of the land that he then transfers to the entreprenuer? Because he holds a piece of oaper that was given to him by someone else who had it by way of someone else who stole it from someone else? What nonsense!

Nobody here is buying your shit, Holla Forums.
Get. Out.

...

I don't think that a centralized planning agency is best for determine what effort goes where. Decentralized organization has been most effective in modern history.

By nationalizing the banks the scenario would go like this:

Happy society

ftfy

Stalin was an opportunist.

Discussed this way, as a legitimate means of governance opposed to constant idpol bashing*

Ftfm

what the fuck did you learn about communism from an american text book?

That he invaded Poland from the east while Hitler came in from the west and then annexed almost all of eastern Europe.

he only did that as an act to buy time from the Germans, and his "annexation" was a support of socialist states

I know that, but in the post I'm replying to the guy says state.

The logistics of the solution to that problem? There are a number of ways it could be handled and I'm not really an expert on any of them. Knowing there's something wrong doesn't mean i know the ins and outs of how to fix it.

But the basics are to not fucking give anyone money for "owning" shit. People should do work. Most solutions call for managers to be selected by the workers themselves, or management duties to be split up amongst the workers. Like for example you need someone to manage new people? Get someone to do that, you need someone to manage rosters? Get someone else to do that, need to decide on pay changes, call a meeting to have everyone discuss it.

Then later on currencyless stuff can happen once society has improved production output and lessened labor requirements to an extreme degree.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

Somebody has to do the administrating.

Decentralized organization doesn't require that entrepeneur. Whether its some joe off the street or a local council or an existing workplace there are many indidivuals and organizations that could come up with these ideas and they could be reviewed and funded by a "national credit union" or something similar without the need to place the loan burden on him or to provide him special rights for coming up with the idea.

Why not pay him the same way anyone else is payed? He figures out an area is ripe for a steel mill or whatever, submits the proposal and is payed for the value of his idea, as it would have taken a certain amount of time and skills developed through previous spending of time to find this spot he is compensated accordingly and can either move on or perhaps take on some role in the new construction/business. There's no reason just because he had this idea he should be in charge of everything involved there.

Yes, like i said the tasks of administration can be divided amongst the existing workers or the workers can appoint someone to work as a full time administrator. Large business decisions could be made by the workers themselves, even if not individually qualified they could as a group make informed decisions and the longer this goes on the more qualified they will become as they see the outcomes of the decisions they made.

I mean on the country wide level.
Who manages the managers.

But by allowing him to have full control you grant him the ability to bring the endeavor to its full potential. He also bears the full responsibility for its success or failure.
And he is justly compensated for that.

Permanent control of the operation is not "just compensation". If they do a good job, pay them well as "project manager" or something for the time invested, don't allow them to forever control an operation that exists due to the work of a large number of people. There is no more justification for the "idea guy" to be given complete control than there is for any other single worker.

Not to mention that if you put all the risk on one person and that person isn't already very wealthy (at which point why do they need the loan?) then you aren't going to get any of the wasted resources back, so on the word of an ideas guy who backed up his crazy scheme by saying "bet you I'll go bankrupt if we fail and ruin my life without being able to pay you back" you decided to hand complete project control to him on the basis that "coming up with the idea makes him the most qualified to bring it to reality" and afterwards its decided the people who produce goods at the operation created by hundreds of people should be forced to hand over anything their work creates to this man at a price he decides (and is of course invariably much lower than what he will sell it for, because he must extract money for himself and to save up for his next venture, meaning that his workers literally cannot afford to purchase an equal value of things to what they created) on the basis that he had the balls to say "just fuck my shit up" at the bank.

WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU EVER DO THIS?

Most people debating the little Nazi retard are losing the point of discussion when debating idiots like him.

Nazism and Fascism in theory and economy have a lot positive elements which they stole from the left. Mussolini was writing for a far left socialist newspaper before he opportunistically founded the brown-shirts and merged it with nationalist dogma. The Nazis took everything from the platitudes of Spengler on "Prussian Socialism" to spout as propaganda (yet even that was just for show).

In effect everything is about Nazism and Fascism is bullshit, whatever they claim to be is in reality contradictory and as we have seen from history has served opportunistic dictators that plunged the world into an orgy of death and destruction against both external enemies in the name of imperialism and internal ones (killing women and children in the name of the Aryan race), in the name of racial purity.

Thus there are only two things to point out with fascist ideology/or historical fascist takeovers. Firstly they are the dream of every bureaucrat, they represent, administrating death and life in the name of efficiency, thus they are indeed one of the bastard children of the enlightenment, though instead of glorifying egalitarianism, freedom of speech and critical reason, their model of aspiration is a peasant toiling endlessly in the fields. Secondly they are all Keynesians, that seek to cheat the decaying conditions of capitalism with state administered war and corporate funding. Hitler would have never gotten to power if he didn't get the support of Gustav Krupp and Georg von Schnitzler, if of course he promised to kill the labor movement in it's tracks ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Meeting_of_20_February_1933 , germanhistorydocs.ghi- dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=3918 ) . Neither would Mussolini, without the Catholic fanatics (Mussolini handed them over 500 acres of land), Pirelli and Ansaldo, the munitions company and in general the "Corporazioni". ( askwhy.co.uk/warandpropaganda/30pirelli_mussolini.php)

( books.google.gr/books?id=AYEbHpKb6dUC&pg=PA330&lpg=PA330&dq=mussolini industrialist support&source=bl&ots=zwBEZSGNs-&sig=xyT9UVEpuCB7lmaBG9K639DIknY&hl=el&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKxPv8vZ7NAhXFAsAKHaN8Cb84ChDoAQgwMAM#v=onepage&q=mussolini industrialist support&f=false )

The workers manage the managers. The managers (if they even exist as individuals, again the tasks we associate with a manager can be just done by workers inbetween other tasks, much like a retail assistant might clean when less cashiers are necessary) would be appointed by the workers, so if they do a shit job and fuck up the workplace the workers will probably notice and strip them of their position or kick them out entirely if they did some really bad shit.

This system could exist alongside many different forms of government or nationwide links. Whether its a network of elected councils, a network of direct democracies, a single direct democracy, a fucking computer, a network of workplaces, a military state bent on making the holodomor look like a toddler scraping his knee or whatever the fuck, there isn't one universal solution everyone agrees on.

But even debating a retard still can raise questions that in answering, considering the answers to or researching the answers to i am able to improve myself, either by improving my recollection, my retard convincing skills or by gaining a better understanding of one of the topics being discussed.

The benefits of arguing with retards are independent of their effects on people other than myself.

If Holla Forums is so obsessed with cucks, why do they support a cuckold ideology?

Oh and its fun. The only time its not fun is when its in a torture chamber where you have to deal with tons of posts flooding in against you (and being told to leave as some kind of impurity in the torture chamber) since everybody else only cares about talking to you (as the only one not in their circlejerk you are the most interesting person) and they all equally expect attention or replies otherwise they feel they have "won".

Its easier when there's multiple people on each sides, so the load can be more easily managed. I feel kinda bad for Natsee here, since he probably feels overwhelmed a bit too. Its okay not to get to every post Natsee, just focus on doing your best so you can win that "you tried" medal from hitler's ghost.

...

For taking joy in the discussion of politics and economics? Or the other guy for making a jab at Holla Forums?

...

Right whilst that third party anecdote about the soviet union is very exciting I have read it before. I take it you aren't interested in the discussion anymore.

wow! Are you sure you are old enough to browse this shit hole?

In what way is that bad?
That's literally what we want.

...

...

...

Yeah well apparently everone here is "bourjois" which i assume is to the bourgeoise what lumpenproles are to the proletariat, members of the bourgeoise incapable of class consciousness. They fail to realize their own self-interests, which would be to protect the bourgeoise or something because they benefit directly from them? I don't know.

That said plenty of wage slaves and the unemployed are here, its not exactly banker's child paradise here.

My favorite part of that to laugh at is always "this operation is bigger than one worker" then he goes on to talk exclusively about one worker, himself. Oh you wacky disingenuous businessman, your lies about the necessity of what you do amuse me so.

why is it socialism again?

...

I'm not even sure its the same guy, earlier he was talking and trying to defend his points, now its just degenerated into image spamming.

Poor poor Capitalist is just trying to grow the economy and shit, allocating resources that aren't his so that he can keep himself from starving.

Just because he isn't getting the whole 75 dollars of surplus doesn't mean he isn't leeching surplus value, you know?
And why is he paying him 25 dollars when he could make a factory on China and pay less that one dollar per worker?

Bunkermag had a huge image on US Imperalism, not sure if that's the one. Old articles are deleted there apparently?

No doubt Bunkermag is just having a cultural revolution comrade, nothing to worry about.

Here are some images Natsee might like, since at this point we are just using our image folders instead of our words.

So, I'm a irrelevant shited brazilian. What's in it for me?