Hey Leftypol, I'm from the Traditionalist Worker's Party

They want social ownership of the means of production but not including the 80% or so of humanity who aren't white.

It's a thing, look up Useful Idiotism. The Nazis had left wing elements to begin with (pretty easy to associate Jews with Capitalism), but Hitler killed them all.

Of course non-whites don't count as human to Nazis, so it makes perfect sense.

Strasserism isn't anticapitalist in any real sense. The "Socialist" part of Nazism is basically just capitalism with Aryan values.

Associating Jews with Capitalism is not anti-capitalist or even a step towards anti-capitalism. Read Zizek.

I know, but people still think that way. I'm not supporting it I'm just saying that it exists.

Hey OP, what's this picture from? Where are you guys located? I'm also in California and am also totally a racially-conscious socialist looking to join your party.

Just let me know where you meet, how many of you there are, whether there are any other people nearby, if police can respond quickly, if the building you meet in is flammable. You know, for safety.

...

this thread is a waste of bandwidth.

...

LOOK AT ALL THESE SPOOKED FAGGOTS

...

And that's when I stopped caring about socialists and liberals.
They hide their failure by going always forward into nihilism.

We're not nihilists, we care about ourselves. We just don't care about "tradition" or "marriage".

...

...

you need to be cultural revolutioned friend

Unlike you true Nietzsche Ubermensch, creating your own, unique, State-approved values that forfeit all responsibility for being a great individual onto your race. Truly, the heroes we untermensch deserve :^🍀🍀🍀)

Support robosexual love!

It's like you don't even read your own platform with school and health vouchers, shill. You can't even claim to be SocDem - this is just lukewarm right-sing ethnonationalism with a side of idiot.

About damn time you walk the plank.

You wont feel much pain after I'm done with you.

speak for yourself fool.

Don't tell me what to do.

You go first.

...

fuck off and die fash scum

...

What makes NationaI Socialists more threatening to you than the typical Republican/Democrat?

...

For the time being the liberals tolerate a number of us existing. The second Nazis achieved a modicum of power witch hunts against not only socialists/anarchists/communists, but other dissidents, would break out.

go back to Sacramento and get fucked up again m8

but why are you socialists? Would you really entrust people who by design have a better life than you do, and with no guarantee whatsoever to act in your interest at all, with your money, your country, your time and future, and overall, your entire life, and the lifes of your family?
Don't you think you should be able to decide for yourself how you spend your money? Instead of, whether you want it or not, giving it away, and hoping that it finds a good a good and efficient use.
In any case. I think its not smart to be for a soicalist government at a times like these. Without a nationalist governent, socialism means a slow death to your country.
And with it, you always are in danger of becoming communist.

Exactly. We should be going to Hillary rallies and fucking them up.

what the fuck are you talking about

nigga i ain't gonna leg drop a fucking 83 year old woman who isn't keeping up with the fact hillary is a fucking shill

Becoming communist is the point, you know.
So you don't have to worry about things like money and capital…

Such as?

Don't you understand the the mode of production shapes culture and that you can't have a traditional culture based on feudal values in a society which does not encourage these?

What the fuck that webm is amazing

I don't think you have a very strong understanding of what socialism actually is

pick one.

KILL YOURSELF

Oh, you mean like we have the rich controling the governement..
Are you saying… taxes are going to safeguard tha banks and private insurance is a hoax as the bourgies may go bunkrupt and my pension and healthcare gone for ever?

MY GOTT!
YOU ARE RIGHT!
HOW CAN WE KEEP SUPPORTING LIBERAL DEMOCRACY?
THE ANARKIDS ARE RIGHT!

DEATH TO THE CAPITALIST OVERLORDS!

No. That's why I'm a socialist.

oh dear sir let me edit a picture for this thread i don't give a shit about just so you can stroke yourself a little harder

No I don't think you guys realise what socialism is. You have a socialist system RIGHT now. Capitalism only exists in a few places in the world right now.
Everything else is capitalism, with big socialist government. Thats what makes it so shitty.

Welfare capitalism is capitalism that includes social welfare policies like the redistribution you're talking about. Just one of the many contradictions within the system.

Outside is a spook, you faggot!

Enjoy your gay jerk off rallies.

What they were addressing was crony capitalism. Which is enabled, by the welfare state. By giving power to people to govern you, in the first place.

...

And it is nonetheless capitalism. The welfare state exists to protect the bourgeoisie by pacifying the lower classes of their revolutionary urge.

Right wing nationalist detected.

>>>Holla Forums

scottish people are a spook

I'm going to rape you.

Look at all the juicy bumps in this thread.

Sounds an awful lot like communism to me.
Also, it seems pretty stupid to me to give "the means of production" to the workers themselves.
Look at how the educational system in the US is doing. I'd argue the teachers unions pretty much "own" it. They end up making sure they get their pay, not thinking about progress and future profit at all. But you tell me if thats not valid comparison, and why it would be any different with any other business.

Thats not really the point of it. Besides, those images just are a way to avoid arguments. He probably doesn't even know whats on that image at all.

So far:
I want socialism because I don't want anyone to rule over me.
Has there been any example of this, ever?
Look at how great its going:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
What I'm saying: Socialism means giving away your individual freedoms, by giving power to politicians and goverment. To enable your dreams of socialism. Really, it seems more of a no true scotsman right here.
But then:
But what does that mean for the big gubernument? It still exists and takes your money as far as I can see it.

That's why you flag related instead of pic related.

Those all look like pretty strong candidates for a free peoples to me.

There is no value being produced in the US school system and no means of production.

From the wiki you linked:
>The following is a list of self-declared socialist states—that is to say, past and present states that have declared themselves socialist or in the process of building socialism. Self-identification is the only criterion used by the list.
Politicians do use talk of socialism to get into/stay in power, and this has become a trend particularly in third-world tinpot dictatorships in large part due to Stalin's disastrous legacy and the fallout of the Cold War. However, (as you guessed it), none of these states are actually socialist.

What it means for government (if indeed there is any government - opinions differ on the role of the state under socialism) is that instead of defending the property rights of rich capitalists (or the state itself) over the means of production, it defends the property rights of workers' communes over the means of production. Historically, none of these so-called socialist states has done this - each one has either retained private ownership or instituted state ownership (which generally benefited corrupt politicians for the most part.)

There is no reason that a socialist state would be particularly prone to abolish legal protections we enjoy under the current liberal order, including the right to bear arms, habeas corpus, free speech, and so on. (That is, of course, unless you happen to live somewhere east of Germany and/or south of the equator before the 90s and your government just got elected with a little help from Russia.)

There's still some authoritarian socialists around, of course, but they can all get fucked.

Bullet through the brain won't hurt much.

I'd be glad if anyone who wanted live in "communes". If you could choose at all, that would be quite a happy world indeed.

I'm aware of that, what I wanted to bring across is the Idea that >They end up making sure they get their pay, not thinking about progress and future profit at all.
I don't think you can have a thriving society with no pressure for performance at all.

Do you have a catchy name for it? Like "crapitalism"?

There are lots of reasons if there are people are in too much power.
And I'm getting the impression there is no such thing as anarcho-communism. It would simply mean people could do as they please. Which I believe would mean reap the benefits of the free market, specialised production, capitalism…
It would mean you dont force anybody to do anything. Making communism impossible.
Are you aware of this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
I've always found the idea very interesting.

Overall, I have no Idea how communism is supposed to work when you dont force everyone to participate.

There would be more pressure to perform under socialism than under capitalism. Under capitalism, all you get for working hard is an hourly wage. Under socialism, you have a share of production, meaning that the more output you produce, the better off you are.

The biggest noteworthy difference between socialism and what we have right now is that socialism would have a different definition of property rights. Think of it this way - you still have the same society of nowadays, people still go to work, but when you get paid, instead of getting so and so dollars an hour, you get a share of the profits equal to your contribution.

And instead of some rich boss making all the decisions with his own profit in mind, you decide collectively on how to handle matters of business, with the goals of the collective in mind.

You say that teacher's unions are shortsighted, but capitalist managers are even worse - often times they won't even care if they fuck up in the long term because they're judged on the basis of quarterly earnings and how well they get the shareholders rich. They could tank a company and cost thousands of people their jobs, and if someone up top made bank off it they'll be lauded for doing so.

I am aware of the kibbutz, and that is an example of the actually existing socialist mode of production. A socialist country would be one where every business works like a kibbutz. The private system where a bunch of people work for the benefit of one owner who contributes nothing to production would be illegal, or at least heavily disincentivized.

No

Unlike some others here, I'm a Marxian communist and I have nothing against you guys. I may disagree with your cultural values, but if you're fighting the class struggle, we're comrades. The thing is, I've read your platform in the past and I don't think the economic reforms you seek go far enough to qualify as "socialist." Learn more about socialist/communist economics and keep organizing. Study the platform of this Spanish party that holds similar cultural views to your own but demands legit socialism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlist_Party_(1970) disregard the monarchist shit, tho.

Remember, the guys on the board don't speak for all Marxists.

(Also, PR tip: get rid of the homemade shields.)

How is that measured? The thing is, I believe thats exactly how it works right now. Even if it doesnt seem that way, and isn't as "direct". The driver in both systems is the same thing then - profit. Your contribution is the value you provide. If you provide a lot of value, you do get paid more. Either by a pay raise, or by a promotion. If you believe you are over qualified for your job, you can always look for something more suitable, or even start your own business.

Paying you accordingly is in the best interest of your bosses. If it is worth it for them.

Companies are rarely owned by single individuals. Rather, there are a lot of share holders who, of course, want to keep their investment fruitful and in business. This means only one thing: Keeping up with the market. To do so, they need to constantly pour money into their business. Meaning, its not in the interest of the "rich bosses" to put all the money into their own pockets. As a manager, it is again to your best interest to to keep the profits at a maximum. This means, having the best people do the job and keep them doing it. While in socialism, you have a set of people may or may not care about how much money they get.
They may or may not be good at they're job, and people may or may not want to have business with them. Specialized production is also a thing after all.

In the end, everyone works for his own benefit and you don't need any force to tell somebody what and what not do. There are ways to disencourage short sighted, negligent behaviour. Laws would be reduced to the basics, but very much still a thing.

I thank you for your arguments, user. I'm getting sleep now. If you reply I'll try to read it later, if its still up.

The problem fascists/nazis have with the current class structure is not the existence of a class system - hierarchy is very important to them. They feel that the current hierarchy is not the right one because the ruling class (da joos) is allowing brown people to "oppress" them, and that whites are not in a place in the hierarchy befitting their genetic superiority.

Dude, I understand fascist and nazi ideoloy, I don't need a lecture from you about it. If these guys are saying they oppose capitalism and support socialism (and mean it) they aren't fascists, by definition. I don't give a shit if someone is racist or opposes gay marriage, if they're also engaging in class struggle on behalf of the proletariat. Unlike you, I'm willing to hear these guys out and give them the benefit of the doubt, instead of shitting all over them like you and others.

No Nazis actually oppose capitalism. They oppose Jewish capitalism, and what they want to implement basically amounts to Aryan capitalism.

Jesus fucking Christ I KNOW WHAT NAZIS HISTORICALLY SUPPORTED. These guys MIGHT SERIOUSLY SUPPORT SOCIALISM. Are you not able to consider the possibility that there are people out there that hold views you hate on race and culture but might support proletarian revolution and socialism too?

Nigga, gtfo.
The Traditionalist Workers Party has nothing to do with socialism you high horse riding faggot.

Let them speak for themselves, you hypersensitive piece of shit.

As long as they put socialism first, I don't see the problem. I'm still convinced their fixation on spooks like tradition is part of the capitalist superstructure and will fade away in time.

Replacing the Jews with "Aryans" doesn't make them stop acting like Jews.

Do some basic research on them, you useful idiot.

The fact one of them came here seeking understanding on common ground means something. I'm willing to hear him out and help guide them towards legit socialism. Faggots like you are why the left is a sectarian shitfest that isn't getting anywhere.

Fucking hell, why are the self-anointed "defenders of the white race" always the worst examples of the white race?

Here's a brown qt to clean everyone's eyes.

Because as proles it's in our self-interest.

No, which is why I want to ditch capitalism which does enable those things by placing control over production in the hands of a few unaccountable entities.

See above. As it is my surplus value is extracted by the same class that forces me to depend on them for food, shelter, and everything in between and further taxed to pay for protection of their interests and a boot on my neck.

Good. Burgerstan is shit and I'd be happy to see it and every other porky state die.

That's the point you dumb shit. This is a commie board, the majority of posters want communism aka a stateless and classless society. You're not gonna scare us with the "muh gorgillions" or convince us with the "muh human nature" arguments we hear on a daily basis.

The fact they came here is why every retard from the right comes here.
It's to recruit people to their side.
You're either a moron, new, or super naive to not have figured that out yet.
We have threads like this daily and they end the same way every time.
If he wants to actually know what socialism is, he can start a thread about it instead of advertising his shitty group.

So you're what, Strass.erists?

IF you seriously thought your way through your anti-capitalism you'd realize that death of capitalism would have enormous effects on the social aspect of society.

The development of free market capitalism most certainly changed how people live compared to feudal lifestyle, this is not a mere coincidence. Trying to defend a traditional lifestyle while attacking the root of modern traditional lifestyle is a conflicting stance.

He didn't come here asking to recruit, he came here requesting the little antifa homos among us, who go after anyone who utters a non-PC remark, leave them alone when they're working towards a similar economic goal to ours. It seems like a reasonable enough request and a good opportunity to educate him on what true socialism actually is. Fags like you are quick to infer sinister intent, because you're cynical shitstains

Holla Forums isn't your personal hugbоx. Go to reddit for that.

Not btw

Of course, because they come right out and say it, don't they?
Have you even lurked Holla Forums before?
IF they were even Useful Idiotist I would be willing to give them a shot, but you can google it and they're not.

Yeah, good luck with that. Because it's been working out real well so far. I mean, if we ignore all the raids and shitposting from them maybe they'll just want us to hold hands and skip stones with them.

I'm not a naive doormat, no.

And I guarantee I've been on this crippled ass website longer than you have cock polisher

Seems nice

You're not a Traditionalist.

"Traditionalist" populism is pointless because it heavily implies that some kind of social agenda has to be mandatory. Just because I think people should be free to pursue unorthodox lifestyles doesn't mean I think badly of people who don't.

If anything it goes to show that the only real value of tradition is the feeling of belonging, which can make people do some seriously sick bullshit.

Geez, did you get your ideology from a haunted house?

Because it sure seems spooky

Traditional for who? And from what time period? Can I make my wife my literal property again?

HurHurHur

there is no more waifu, only the sexual properties of objects
much regards for your efforts,

sincerely, Holla Forums

Not at all. What you're paid has nothing to do with what value you actually contribute, all you get is the going market rate for your type of labour. Look at it this way: say you work in a dildo factory. You get paid $5 an hour, and with you working it, the dildo machine produces $100 worth of dildos per hour. What happens then is that for five hours of work, the owner of the dildo factory gets $500 worth of dildos. After handling maintenance and business related costs, he gets to keep $400. For your efforts, you get $5, which is the going rate for unskilled labour. In other words, using the means of production you are able to produce $500's worth of goods in five hours, but you have to give away all but 1% of it. And the $5 value has nothing to do with how much value you produce, it's all about how scarce labour is. When labour is plentiful, you can afford to pay people less because they'll be willing to work for peanuts. If the task you perform requires specialized skills, you'll be able to ask for higher pay as there will be fewer people with that level of qualification around. As more people become educated and society grows more skillful, wages will drop due to the increased supply. Socialists consider this fundamentally unjust, as the owners of the means of production (the dildo machine) contribute nothing to the productive process and yet take the majority of the share, and their ownership over the means of production is exploitative and illegitimate (bourgeois capitalists did not forge the machinery we refer to as the means of production using their bare hands and the sweat of their brows, contrary to popular beliefs. In nearly all cases, the means of production was built and designed by workers.) Therefore, we believe that the means of production (and all the dildos it produces) should be owned collectively by the workers who use it as a matter of fundamental justice.

I'm not implying that shareholders pocket all of the gross profits. And I know how business works. Don't condescend. I am telling you that all they care about is net profits. Meaning they are incentivized to pay you as little as humanly possible, cut your benefits and even get rid of your job altogether if they think that that will make them money.

Why would they not care about money? The only reason someone would work in the first place (besides love, and we're not mass-producing dildos out of love) is to make money. It is very much in their interest to do the best job possible, because producing more, better (and therefore more valuable) dildos is makes them more money (the reason they are working), as each worker will be able to enjoy a full share of the profits proportional to the value of the dildos he personally produces. Because their material livelihoods depend on the success of the business, they are incentivized to put out a quality product, maintain their dildo machine, produce enough to keep up with the demand and collectively deal with incompetents and troublemakers in their commune, find more efficient ways to work, improve their product and develop new things.

When the capitalist owns the dildo machine, however, all the workers have to care about is showing up for their shifts and not getting fired. They don't have an interest in working harder than others because it won't result in them getting paid more, because there is a huge unemployed pool of hard workers and the demand is therefore very low. They have no stake in the business or helping it succeed, because they can and likely will be tossed aside at some point when they or the place their work is no longer profitable for the shareholders.

Under capitalism? No. Under capitalism, the worker works so he does not starve, for the capitalist's benefit, and the capitalist does not work at all. The worker is forced to do so by the capitalists together with the state, who own the land and the factories (keeping them guarded so that the worker cannot feed himself without working for them) and who disenfranchise or brutalize anyone who tries to organize against them.

Under socialism, yes, everyone works for his own benefit, and also for his neighbour's. The workers and the shareholders are one in the same - the concepts are synonymous both in practical terms and in the law.

I don't think you actually understand what Socialism is, given some of the things you've written. You may be assuming things that are not actually the case. However, I'm sure some of the nice people here would be happy to help you, if you ask.

[Glutionously gluttonous capitalist heavings intensifies]

Hillarious! This is the very definition of the bourgeoisie, who must contend with this elegant dialectical spit-roasting!

Fucking cowards

I don't understand. Can you clarify?

...

I don't and I laughed when you knifed and won against those moronic SJW faux communists despite being outnumbered. Keep up the good work.

It takes a working man raised by a working man, raised with seven siblings to a room and only apples as a christmas present for this to make sense to you, younchampagne revolutionary.

Get fucked.

No, it's because political illiterates keep shitposting without knowing what socialism is.

Socialism develops into communism, so obviously the two are going to be similar.

You could have just told us directly that you're a retard instead of being all coy about it.

For what to make sense to me? Who is this man and what does he have to do with any of this?

Nothing. You are your own man and I am my own. Let's kill each other with guns.

The bourgeoisie are managers of capital.

Does the admission that we're ultimately working in our own self-interest really trigger you that badly?

This is your custom. In my custom it is how the strong rise up and the weak fall down. We all meet in the middle and in the grave.

Traditional what? Traditional LARPers?

It is what was demonstrated. What is your point?

Know what I mean?

Your posts sound like the incoherent rants my crazy uncle posts on Facebook in the middle of the night.

Are you going to explain what you're talking about or are you going to continue with the schizo-speak?

Why don't you interpret the meaning of my words, shithead?

Please take your meds, user. We're all very worried about you.

It is the Communist way, Comrade. We care. About you.
Really!

I'm trying to, but your posts are vague and a bit rambling. What the fuck is the point you're trying to make?

Take a look at this shit. No working class dude is ever going to spend even spit on this fucking hokum. That's how I can tell you are full of shit.

That subject is up to you to chastise, Phrygian.

...

So you're saying working class people wouldn't like something about us.

What exactly is it that they wouldn't like?

Big dumb words.

So you think working class people are stupid?

I think they have better things to do with their time.

I've talked to their second in command, their for mixed markets, i.e. not socialists.

Like what? Read small words?

So you believe that people are basically evil and need to be controlled by big government, but also hate communism because it's 1984 totalitarian.

...

Notice how this turd ends all posts with a ?
Depends on your eyesight. Reading is good.

They were escorted away by the police.

I end my posts with a question mark because I'm asking a question.

So it's good to read small words but not big words?

What the fuck are you getting at? Is there some point you're trying to make or are you legit off your meds?

You'll love this then. He had an AMA on Reddit on a fascist sub.

m.reddit.com/r/DebateFascism/comments/4qpruv/i_am_eric_striker_of_the_traditionalist_workers/

wew almost as despised on both sides as much as jewish bourgeoisie oligarchs

Caring about rights of individual to marry is not a nihilism, it's a value. You are the nihilist here, my dude.

Is that faggot on the right their usual spokesman? Matthew something?

You can be very eloquent like the people in the big mags that people can afford to read, alternatively you can make like Steinbeck or Bukowski and write stuff people bother to read.

well shit, it is just like Holla Forums. You guys suck too.

Anyway, fuck you cunts.

We're not even being eloquent. This is all fairly plain speech, fam.

That is what you think, "fam".

I haven't seen any flowery language in this thread, fam.