Imperialism is Progress

Leninists (and Trots) are more of Blanquists and populists than Marxists, really.

yes, but also largely full of the classic 600 bourgillion

I'm not trying to turn this into a Jew thread btw.

The pic shows the Jewish influence that is present behind certain economic schools of thought. The fact that only one is free of Jewish influence should be rather alarming, considering that Jews are not very numerous.

This implies that all increase in productive force equals progress. If I enslaved everyone who is unemployed, technically humanity's productive force would be improved but it would hardly be progress and I would hardly do it efficiently. There is nothing inherently positive in imperialism itself.

And killed millions of Indians. How about this, I will blow your leg off BUT I will give you a Pokemon band-aid to compensate. Although it is only a band-aid, it has Pikachu on it, so it's fun.

I notice also: Karl Marx was not technically a Jew, certainly not raised as one and was quite antisemitic for today's standards..
You also conveniently left out the non Jews of thoses ideologies out of the picture.
You left out the Jew funder of racial nationalsim out of the picture

What if i told you than Jews do not form a malefic hivemenind but are people following different paths?

Oh, and you might recheck this death toll..

You just showed that a couple Jews were influential in the big three economic schools of thought: Large state/social control, some state/social control, and no state/social control. By that logic, Not Socialism as a form of socialism is Jewish in nature.

Well now it's a Jew thread.

No. Slavery is horribly unproductive, which is why it was abolished.

More factories -> more + better stuff -> progress. Compare Shanghai 20 years ago to Shanghai today.

Indian sultans also killed millions of Indians. European conquerors were not much worse than their predecessors. It's the same as giving socialism the fault for soviet famine of early 30s while ignoring every famine that happened in the Russian Empire.

Numbers have little to do with production or influence. Jews having small numbers but disproportionate influence tells us that Jews are disproportionately predisposed to influential or critical behavior. It may have been made possible by centuries of Jewish influence, but that in turn was made possible by white rules governing who could and could not engage in certain successful ventures and profitable occupations. Before this, Jews were not particularly successful people. Certainly the Romans did not consider them particularly successful or smarter than the average Roman citizen.

Slavery was not abolished because it was unproductive. The North didn't abolish slavery because it was not profitable to own slaves, to the contrary, it was quite profitable to own slaves once the cotton gin was invented.

More factories don't necessarily mean better stuff, just more of it. More stuff isn't necessarily better. It certainly isn't necessarily better for the actual people who engage in work to produce it. Compare the buying power of American manufacturing sector workers 20 years ago to today.

So they were worse than their predecessors but not by much, therefore it's cool because they're only slightly shittier? Okay.

...

Regarding capitalism, the Jews can exploit it too easily. Jewish economists come up with schools of thought that seek to expand and maintain this control. Communism, on the other hand, was invented by Jews - it's not just 'some' of them, it's all of their leaders (Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, it's rumoured Stalin too).

He was a racial Jew, which is what matters. He had the Jewish genes. As for the antisemitism, he was calling out Jews exploiting capitalism in order to gain support and set himself up as the alternative option, allowing the Jews to control both ends of the spectrum. Remember, he was hijacking Owenism here, rather than creating anything new.

Point is, the Jews are massively over represented, and more often than not, the leaders.

'Hitler was Jew pawn' has been debunked. See pic.

Oh, there are different types of Jew - just look at B████ ██████. The Zionists hate him. B████'s still a Jew though.

I'm actually pretty sceptical of these claims about mass killings in Communist countries. Believe me, I've had enough experience with this sort of thing.

No, because it's not Marxist or capitalist.

- Adolf Hitler 1938

The main point is not that they control things, but that they use this control o push harmful agendas that result in the destruction of a nation and its society.

Now, out of respect for OP, I'm not posting anymore, since I don't want to derail his thread.

you have your own board to go and whine impotently about jews on, please go there instead of shitting this board up.

I think he meant founder. Because the founder of racial socialism, Moses Hess, was Jewish,

A screenshot of unsourced Holla Forums rambling is not an argument btw.

Slavery (and bondage) arises in all societies where territory is abundant while work-force is scarce. You didn't have bondage in Russia until they actually defeated the Tatars and started colonizing the Volga basin. You didn't have slavery (as a mode of production) in Christian Europe, until new continents were found and had to be exploited. In ancient Rome, slavery started to get replaced by feudalism (colonate) when population density grew enough to make running off a silly idea.

For slavery to work, you have to employ people who motivate the slaves. It is much cheaper to employ them as "twice free labourers" who are happy you give them the chance not to starve.

Somehow yet, Chinese manage to make smartphones. They wouldn't be able to do so without the exploitation, and at the same time, capital accumulation of western companies went more rapidly.

Compare the buying power of Chinese manufacturing sector workers 20 years ago to today.

wtf I love imperialism now

No one gives a shit faggot go back to your board.

ANYONE can exploit it too easily

gross oversimplification, maybe some of the people involved had jewish heritage but to call them all jews is just wrong

who gives a fuck except stormfags?

Not what we're talking about, we're talking inventors of ideologies.
The racial nationalism has been invented by this guy. A Jew. Following your own logic, you're following Jewish ideology useful to exert a better control on people.

It's a mixed economy. Not Socialism's focus has always been on the idea of the people and the nation-state, and not really on economics. In practice what Nazi Germany did was to socialize some industries and leave others to be of course heavily overseen but more free, if they weren't crucial to the war effort. This is not so different from the economy of the Soviet Union, and Hitler was absolutely pro-union. Does that make Hitler a crypto-Marxist? Not at all, so don't worry, I'm not saying that Hitler believed in Marxism. I am, however, saying that it's bullshit to believe that Not Socialism's economic practices were not influenced by collectivist practices promoted in their current form initially by, you guessed it, Jews.

At some point you will have to come to terms with the impossibility of living in a world free of some Jewish influence on history, especially European history where they were brought in specifically to get around the limitations imposed on Christians in matters of finance. Had Jews not been placed in their positions of serious influence by Christians they would not be so collectively influential today and would be really not more than another Middle Eastern tribe. They are distinct, a caste apart from Christians, because that is exactly what Whites always needed them to be.

Oh, funder =/= founder. My mistake

You didn't refute anything about slavery being just as productive as wage labouring, all you did is talk about the material conditions that give rise to slavery.

Don't call yourself a socialist and defend imperialism. It was done with the sole intent of exploiting people's for profit and caused millions of deaths.

YOU HAVE TO GO BACK.

Before or after he made them illegal and killed all the leaders?

You can argue that imperialism is a progress in the sense that capitalism is progress compared to feudalism.
Better=/=good

Nazi Germany was the outlier in the entirety of western Europe to anything BUT socialize. It privatized like hell.

and it pulls the well worn trick of one side advances at the expense of the other

Yes he was pro-union. Have you read Mein Kampf? I encourage you to read Mein Kampf, it's important to realize just what an influence the book had and just what Hitler was going for because he really does lay it all out. He was definitely in favor of socializing industries, by which I mean as much state control over them as possible under the assumption that the state is the same as the people, or rather, the people that mattered. He tied it to his racial theories and military prowess, which turned out to not be so good. Germany's total war was a total failure.

Of course as I said it was a mixed economy, he privatized and outsourced. It was basically state capitalism, where the state took what it wanted, gave to whom it wanted to give to and if it didn't want to give anything, well, then it didn't. If a Jewish state did that, Nazis would shit a brick.

If slavery was productive, people wouldn't universally stop using it. As a materialist, I don't believe in people deciding to do things out of their heart's goodness.

As pretty much everything else done by the ruling classes over the course of the history of mankind.
All the "muh national self-determination" stuff is nationalism, pure and simple.

...

this, exactly.

...

No
He wasn't
historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/trade-unions-and-nazi-germany/

The Civil War was fought because the South could outcompete the North using slaves.

Why does that change anything?

...

I dunno, maybe it suggest the possibility that deaths related to communism might have been inflated?

Citation needed.

It's an out of context quote. I'm a little bit skeptical that Engels would be championing US imperialism of all things.

At least to me it sounds like a rhetorical argument that Engels is setting up to refute in subsequent paragraphs, but it's not like I've read this particular article.

I'm on my phone but feel free to google it. Like the "materialist" says, if the slaves weren't productive it wouldn't make sense that the south would be willing to go war over it to defend their inferior system of production.

and you call us lazy…

Didn't the north went at war with the south because it challenged the federal authority?

I did Google it. Didn't find anything. That's why I wanted a citation. But if you have a source I'd be interested. Don't need it now, I'll check back tomorrow.

The South was the first to attack Fort Sumter in South Carolina, which it did because the South's pro-slavery candidate lost. Lincoln hadn't made any promises to free the slaves, but he wasn't real big on the idea of keeping humans as chattel, either.

The Southern oligarchy got fed up with the Federal government because they wanted/needed to expand geographically like the Roman Patricians of old. Unlike the Yankees who could just build bigger factories and better machines, the only way to increase profitability with the plantation system was getting more land. The south aristocracy already had all the land that was worth a damn between the rio grande and the atlantic, which is why they wanted to expand south into Mexico and the Caribbean.

If you want to really boil it down the whole conflict was over "slavery," but the historical process was capitalism leaving the slave economy in the dust and reactionary landowners throwing a fit about it.

I'm only here again because I can't have this many unfounded claims made against me.

I didn't want this to turn into a Jew thread. See my posts.

Haven't seen any sources from you m8.

Didn't want this to turn into a Jew thread, it was you lot that did this.

To call Hess the founder of Nat.Soc. is a bit of a stretch. Nat.Soc. is not merely racial socialism, it's much more than that.

I suppose a good parallel with socialism is Robert Owen, who predates Marx. Now, Owen arguably founded socialism - he was the first to set up trade unions and use collective bargaining. But socialists today do not derive their ideology from Owen, they derive it from Marx. You see what I'm saying?

I know, it's just that Jews are more inclined to exploit others.

It's 'all' of them or just 'some' of them. The point is, the majority of those involved in early Communism were Jews - Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, and it's rumoured Stalin. This is also clear to see in the German revolution. See pics.

You are right to say that Germany's economy was mixed, and that Nat.Soc. is not Jewish, but there are a number of inaccuracies in your post.

As some of the others have pointed out, Hitler was not pro-union. He thought the structure allowed corruption, and he thought union bosses abused there power. A corporatist approach is what was favoured, I believe. Additionally, NS Germany didn't socialise industries, it privatised them. One shouldn't assume that this is capitalism though - it was more like state capitalism, as the private enterprise was only allowed to produce what the government told it to produce, and capital was only allowed to be utilised for the good of the nation.

Discarded

Yet precisely the opposite occurred in the post-Soviet countries.

Not an argument.

...

You can't possibly deny that Soviet Rule brought mass literacy and industrialization to Central Asia.

If Jews didn't create/maintain notsoc then why is Israel the premier fascist state?

yeah sure

tfw engels was a proto neoconservative

It brought mass Russian literacy (colonization) and the desiccation of the Aral Sea, yes. Not to mention one of these worst radiological disasters in human history, and I'm not talking Chernobyl.