Lets post more of these

I remember when some guy said that the Jew was a codename for the elite. But when you're pretending to be a fool…

If you don't change the economic system but only remove the business men you don't like, some other assholes will take their place. The very nature of capital and the commodity fetishism it brings will always creates exploiters and exploited.

After the Jews will come the CryptoJews, after that the "not technically Jews but totally tainted by Jewish blood" after that the chinese, after that you'll go after the hibernians and so on. Maybe, after 6 or 7 purge cycles, you'll notice a pattern and maybe you'l think "What if the system is creating the kind of people we despise?" Then maybe you'll start to read Marx. Sad for all the people who died but that's how people learn i guess.

But we don't just get rid of the Jews, we do change the system. Under Nat. Soc. usury is abolished and the banks nationalised. This prevents anyone, not just the Jews, from earning money by exploiting others.

I've read some Marx but quite simply, economic equality is a pipe dream. Handouts cannot work because humans are too selfish. However, you can offer everyone the chance of a good job with decent wages (rather than benefits), which then lifts them out of poverty while allowing them to contribute to the nation as a whole.

OP didn't endorse antisemitism. Le happy merchant in pic is referring to stormfags belief that the whole show is run by the jews, but somehow a capitalist by the name Johnson is better fit to rule over his workers than a man name Rubin, because Rubin is jewish and Johnson looks "aryan". Go figure.

Nazism doesn't exist.

...

No it doesn't.

I'd tell you what it's called but the filters don't allow it.

State provides the jobs, not private companies, m8.

How about abolishing work, instead.

Oh well, I guess it's okay then. So long as I'm enslaved to group A instead of group B.

Socialism isn't about handouts or making everyone equal, m8. Have you read Capital?

Broadly speaking, it's about eliminating private property, in the sense of not allowing people to claim ownership over something another person produces using the justification that they "own" the MoP.

Not so much abound handouts as not giving 90% of the profits you produce to someone else because of their state-given right to exploit you.

How about you grow up and stop being so lazy?

Nobody takes anarchists seriously, m8. Probably because 14 year olds tend to be retarded when it comes to this sort of stuff.

I was referring to modern day socialism. I think you're referring to Marxism.

To be fair, I see the sense in this. But I don't believe most people would work if they couldn't own property. I could be wrong, though.

But you cannot keep the fruit of your labours under socialism, that's the inherent problem. People won't work unless they see a reward that is proportional to or greater than the amount of work they put in.

I don't want to have a job granted by the State, i want me and my coworkers to control what we do. You know, self determination?

You've got your terminology a little backwards. Over here when we talk about socialism, it usually refers to a society transitioning to communism where private property has been or is being abolished. The whole welfare handouts thing is referred to as social democracy or socdem for short, and is pretty looked down upon around here for not really solving the problem.

You can still own property, stuff like cars, clothes, toothbrushes, guns, computers, etc. The only thing you can't do is use that property to exploit the labour of others, which excludes a class of property we most commonly refer to as the Means of Production.

Quite the opposite! You cannot keep the fruits of your labour under capitalism, as your boss takes them away and you only get paid for your ability to labour. Under socialism, you get paid the full value of what you produce. Contribute to building a car, and you get a share in that car's worth proportional to the work you put in, along with all the other workers who contributed. That way, everyone has a vested interest in working real hard and getting paid for the nice things they make.

Not an argument count: 4

Why are Nazi's so politically illiterate?

But socialism and communism involves giving up control tot he state anyway. Unless you're an anarcho-communist, which is a meme.

I see. Good to hear that you guys reject that, at least.

So basically, you support nationalisation? Too expensive to do this with too many industries tbh, though I think state owned is generally better than private ownership, as long as the state runs things efficiently.

That's very similar to Nat. Soc. economics actually, and I completely agree.

Says the guy who hasn't made an argument.

Let's how 'politically literate' you are in Holla Forums

What is so hard to understand in worker ownership? The State is not the workers, that's the stalinists fundamental mistake.

Not necessarily. If the state is running businesses just like a regular capitalist, making a profit and paying people wages for their labour, it's not really socialism. This happens in China, for example, where the state runs businesses for a profit and pays workers the going market rate for their labour. This is what we call state capitalism, because workers are still being exploited through wage labour, only with the state as employer instead of a private party. That's why most everyone here says that the USSR, Best Korea, Venezuela and especially China aren't socialist.

What I'm personally in favour of is worker-owned co-ops, like the Argentine reclaimed factories. In this kind of arrangement, the workers contribute to the process of production and are paid with a direct share in the profits instead of a set wage. The idea is to change the property rights regime so as to prevent anyone from just sitting on their ass and getting paid without contributing to production.

You can imagine it this way - say you work at a business. What you do is you carve little statues out of wood that are worth $15 on the market. However, your boss owns the forest where you gather the wood and the knife (in this universe knives are extremely rare and very dear) you use to carve, so every time you finish a statuette, he takes it away to sell later, and pays you $1 per hour, not for the statues, but for your ability to work a knife. Under socialism, this is not permitted - we say that one man is not permitted to own a forest or the knife, and that the man who carves the statue is entitled to its worth himself.

Of course, naturally, we can't stop at that. Once you get to the point where the means of production is so efficient that one man's labour can essentially feed, clothe and entertain everyone else, we can't rely on market forces to distribute all that equitably, so there would be some need for intervention in order to spread the work and the benefit around in a fair and equitable manner.

Likewise, even with worker ownership and the retention of markets some small amount of redistribution and reinvestment would be necessary to keep the economy going and prevent crises. But not such that nobody makes more than anyone else, just so that money doesn't clot up and things stop being produced (or to prevent overproduction and wasted work.)

You'd still see some of the problems under capitalism under such a regime such as planned obsolescence and whatnot, but I'm really more concerned with stopping exploitation and eliminating the bourgeoisie in the short term. Bear in mind that there are lots of different ideas about what socialism ought to look like, and there's not a clear consensus on what the best route is. All of them have their pros and cons.

Just don't listen to the leftcoms. They're giant babies.

But if the workers own the means of production, doesn't that make them bourgeoisie?

Fixed.

...

Holy. Fucking. Shit.

...

pick one and only one, stormcuck.

...

...

This might have to be capped. The more evidence of this autism, the better.