Nazis ARE Socialists

You try being this bored and having intellectual integrity at the same time. It's rough man.

I hope that was something you had pre-typed and not something you put effort in to.

Attached: 12141512345.png (250x272, 18.27K)

Get off my board.

Attached: 2c7f5fad51adbf8c1dabb5b1b46c7a04a7f17c354bd77b2462e14958e93546f6.jpg (1024x512, 149.87K)

>>>Zig Forums

There's better ways to spend your time than bumping an obvious shill thread.

Attached: alt faggot sargon cuck (2)

...

There isn't anything in this quote that contradicts OP. National Socialism is absolutely, 100% socialism. It is not capitalism. It is not like capitalism. It is not a front for capitalism. It is not a spin-off of capitalism. It involves heavily nationalized assets, mandatory labor service, strict state control over the issuance of money, at times price controls, at times straight barter for national trade.

The Fox News forums are likely more your speed.

Attached: Arbeitsdienst.jpg (1805x1058, 622.92K)

Explain to me what the hypocrisy is?

Maybe

And nothing you said contradicts . NatSoc is not like marxism. It is not a front of marxism It is not a spin-off of marxism. It involves private property and outlawing class struggle.

Attached: quote-the-truth-is-not-always-beautiful-nor-beautiful-words-the-truth-laozi-59-44-07.jpg (900x393 14.23 KB, 54.4K)

I wasn't trying to contradict it. That quote is constantly paraded on this board by trashy Reaganite American scum looking to justify their worthless Coca-Cola nigger economic model.
Stop trying to sound clever.

Any system can work if the people in that system agree on the rules, and to obey them. Whites are particularly good at this.

Is it really private property if the fuhrer can order you into the oven if you piss him off?

You're free to think whatever just don't promote pedophilia or scam your fellow man.
Being pro-liberty or pro-community ad absurdum is absurd.

Could you rephrase so that I can make sure that I'm not misunderstanding it?

What fantasy world do you live in? Name one respectable country were you can do what ever you want?
That's not even what the quote says.

Here, have a better quote instead
„only laws will bring us freedom”- Goethe

I have never seen it being posted as something that would downplay NatSoc

The US could detain innocent japs during ww2. There will always be an authority to seize "freedoms" if the authority feels like it needs to do so. The trick is to get the authority to act in the public intrest and make it keep doing that.
Hitler only got official dictatorial power in 1942 but he never intended that the government should be a dictatorship. Atleast not during peace time.

I like you, OP
I agree with your statements
The only path to freedom is a stateless society
But I do come to Zig Forums for the memes and news

You need to have a golden mean

That is the only context in which it is ever posted.

Newsflash, it did. "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions."

That is almost always the result of religion.

Attached: quote-George-Washington-let-us-with-caution-indulge-the-supposition-89291.png (1000x760, 936.8K)

that's the most left the left can get user, statism. i suggest you gas yourself

Attached: 586c711a694089b317caaa49759177948cadbd8155d77cf85dec202569534a9b.jpg (570x574, 32.08K)

lolbertarians need to be hanged. No better than liberals, desu.

I can with 100% certainty say that thats not the case.

Filtered.

wew

Oh no, whatever shall I do?

Literally have no idea what point you are trying to get a cross.

...

He's saying there's a point where liberty is a net negative, and leaves one wanting an authority that enforces a standard you find acceptable (it's always a compromise, because you're not the only person the authority serves).

The only path to a stateless society is everyone agreeing on everything, otherwise factions form. The best we can do right now is to form white societies, because white people are the most able to get along. Until such a time that we all share one mind governments are going to form, and we need to consider the best way to organize government so as to account for human failings rather than wish away reality.

I've been down the ancap road. There's great intellectual depth there, but you can still go deeper. I just watched a debate between an ancap and a bunch of nationalists, and I was applauding and facepalming at both sides.

Consonence. What a fucking lovely word
SIEG HEIL UNCLE ADOLF I LOVE YOU AND YOU LIVE ON THROUGH ME

In the sense that both put up basically zero resistance to judaism, yes, they are equal.

We need a position strong enough to oppose and destroy our enemies. If only there was such a third position…

How the fuck are you going to keep a country free from subversion without a strong state and nationalized economics? Like fucking corporations have any moral obligation to a country.
A completely free market would be globalism on steroids. 3 enormous companies ruling over their economic units formerly known as people.

I swear to fuck all of these individualists are so fucking retarded, motherfuckers don't even know how much they are towing the jewish line.

Attached: 02b401acb189b58f515ff9045876393aca24a3f022eeaec827e648e844245cff.png (634x566, 15.87K)

Where people get their morals, their "golden mean", is from religion. I guess I misunderstood the meaning of that post as well.

Isn't that equivalent of saying "I don't like X, therefore no one can be allowed to like X"?

TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SYSTEMS, RETARD!
archive.fo/Rb85l

The word "privatization" was introduced by National Socialism.

I never said anything about capitalism. Just made the obvious observation that some company will always come out on top, this company will then slowly buy all their competition out. Just like today, the only thing governments do is control how fast this monopolization happens.

If you actually read that shitty article you posted, you would have discovered how much it shits on capitalism.

Ghostler is that you?

And assuming you aren't a very shitty troll, i just want to inform you how much you are in over your head. Your knowledge about these subjects and your comprehension of my arguments is very shallow.

It's more like "enough people don't like x, therefore x is a problem". We live in communities, and they thrive on agreements that are respected. People who disrespect the community standards get banned. That's one way states form.

Is this real strasserism hours?

Attached: GERstrasserO8.jpg (450x401, 20.03K)

It's like that to much "liberty" is bad and to much "authority" is bad. You need a golden mean.
>archive.fo/Rb85l
The person that wrote that obvisouly has no understanding of politics or geo-politics or people/race. And thats the whole point why (((capitalism))) is so bad. If anything the article point out the obvious even more.

How does it shit on capitalism?

Then enlighten me.

And, what if "X" actually is a better way for the community to function, but the majority of the community rejects it because it requires them to change an aspect of themselves and they don't want to do that?

I like your palindromatic get

Doesnt change that the pale horse is coming for you jews.

Attached: go_back_where_you_came_from.png (685x763, 644.84K)

Then
A. An authority works in the direction of X
which leads to
a. The people accept/tolerate it
or
b. The people does not accept/tolerate it and internal hostilities break out
or
B. The community starts so break up

But then it's never as black and white as X being good or bad. It's a continuum and external factors has great importance.

And this is why I was called a commie so often in my ancap days. The answer to your "what if" is that your system (or lack of) is retarded, and even less successful than communism because you're not willing to apply force. You can't reason everyone into your way of life.

Form up with likeminded people, agree on some rules, and enforce them. That's society.

Only jews know what's best for us

Did you read the infographic? Not really gonna hold your hand on this one.
You diverted the discussion from the stability of governing systems, to a meaningless semantics debate based on you imagining me saying globalism and capitalism are the same. If that is the most depth you want in this discussion, you should instead have started a thread on /r/socialism. They would have thrown shit at you and babbled incomprehensibly, a perfect match really.

Attached: cad983acb210180b162c1faa544d524bb36a880d35c0dea1507c7af07d418209.png (442x558, 49.94K)

Categorically nope/11

So, to use an analogy then, how do you "force" the horse to drink water after leading to a water trough? And, showing in every way that you can, that it's clean, healthy water that will hydrate the thirsty horse?

This was meant to link to this post:

It is, it just follows a different version of socialism which branched off before proudhon.
It is not. We have european social-democracy, socialism with chinese characteristics, post-soviet eastern european communism(Belarus), and some others which are working right now.
What makes a country fail is how retarded and/or greedy its dominant class is, and in capitalist countries, the retards dont reach the positions of power often for obvious reasons.

...

Reported for kike shill.

"vast inequality" is certainly a very neutral statement.
A completely non-cohesive society, made up onely of private actors is hopelessly defenseless. I just have to become the richest man in my area and my private army and buyouts will let me take all of your shit. This would obviously lead to balkanization and turfwars based on greed. This free market utopia will be curb-stomped by the first large nation that wishes to invade.
Nations weren't just forced on the citizens, they came about through alliances of many kings that wanted to protect their kingdoms from larger enemies. Just like today with NATO being an abstraction of this idea. Individualistic fundamentalism is pure weakness in a social animal like humans.

It's socialism the way that sharing with your family is socialism. The goal of naziism was for everyone of the same ethnic genetic family to support each other.

Outlawing statism is not enough.

We must subject all violators of the non-aggression principle to arbitration by the parties' respective dispute-resolution-organizations.

like fapping to ASMR

Checked
STOP MASTURBATING

How is this different from individuals creating a network?

good question.

...

*scoffs*

Attached: 8abf3769c34f49f8a9ce9d9a2e1101bfc249ddc9abfd80ac86c1a7c93b03a2b3.gif (382x456, 722.71K)

Your question is nonsensical. First it's nonsense in the way that I have no reason to come up with a way to achieve your goal, and second, if I'm forcing someone to do something then I don't have to explain shit.

You are right that the state is an unwieldy, non-ideal solution to human organization, but where the potential for a state to form exists, the necessity to form a state exists. This is the same logic behind increasingly powerful weapons technology. Nobody wants to bring a rock to a gunfight, or in your case the NAP to a nuke fight.

Go back to trannypol OP

Yeah, reading back on it now, I don't know how it relates to the discussion on hand or why I brought it up.

...

Cool.
Whats supposed to upset me about that?
Its a highly variant strain of socialism, different from that which Marxism is built upon, and its stripped-down-model-integrated-with-civic-nationalism status undermines most other points you've raised as far as I am concerned.

Oh, oh wait…

Another (1) and done.

(2) and done.

(1) and done.

Found the shills.

Wew lads. And people still pretend this board isn't compromised.