Natsoc here, just watched a video...

Twenty years ago I barebacked a hooker and cummed inside her, about half a dozen times over a couple of months. Luckily, I'm long gone from where I used to live (and this was before the CSA, the Child Support Agency, started anyway.)

I've got no idea if she was on the pill or not, or got pregnant, but if she did, would it count? She was a lovely looking Thai honey. I'd love to think somewhere there's an offspring of mine, maybe just going to college or at the start of their working life.

oof

...

Why? Take your demiurgic trash out of here.

:(

I'm not saying that its immoral to be genetically suicidal, but i'm not and in 100 years the world will be full of people who aren't either.

...

Well put, user.

Attached: Demiurgic trash.jpg (731x900, 174.77K)

Im saying hi im a natsoc, I'm sympathetic to alternative economic systems show me what you've got.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4331212/

Read dis.

You began with:
You have to define what is race and how one's belonging to a racial group is determined. Then you go on to say:
Why the fuck should anyone try to convince you of anything when you just admitted you don't want to change your mind on the racial issue. It is safe to assume your mind will be just as rigid on other issues. Why did you proclaim your stance on race in the first place if you only wanted to talk economics? You're dishonest.

Besides, you're an unapologetic nazi and racist piece of shit. Fuck off.

Honestly? It's just liberalism and classical economics.
Every form of slavery destroys the wealth the slave WOULD have made had they been left alone. It's Bastiat's "broken windows" and collective decision theory (which is more anarchist than collectivist; "the wisdom of crowds" is the starting work, and if it becomes codependently collectivist, one again loses what-would-have-been that gets shut out).
It's a MAJOR driving force between the deadweight loss which is WELL established for monopoly, oligopoly, oligosopony, et cetera.
Anarchism upholds this because, no masters. Communism upholds this because, just check a factory out of the library for a weekend and build your dream. Socialism partly upholds this because of universal voice and the chance to realize more dreams therein.
It's no coincidence that "wealth" in the dark ages was kind of a shithole, and invention of new kinds of wealth has usually been the domain of serfs with no real interference or regulatory barriers.
This is all very firmly in classical economic theory. You can read about it there. Rent-seeking behavior as a total loss is ALSO deeply in classical economic theory, and the left tends to chuck that as well.
So… the reading is there. Cue some tankie all butthurt that mainstream economics actually supports left thought, but it's what's up.

No surprise as to which part /radlibpol/ got mad over

Stop trying to shill National Socialism. Not because it won't lead to anything but because it helps filter out who's an actual Zig Forums user and who's some out of the board spammer like you. from Zig Forums or Zig Forums.

Also:
Just leave you're embarrassing yourself even more.

Attached: Magenta Magenta.png (1280x720, 293.45K)

You are embarasing. Just say it openly : I hate people of other races.

And?

Giving a shit about race is stupid, but if do give a shit you should still be a communist. The cause of mass immigration is capitalist exploitation of the the developing world, endless war is the only way to keep capitalism going. If communists came to power in the first world, we would be supporting working class movements in the middle east/africa/asia to build up their country so they wont have to leave.
No one wants to leave their home and travel half way across the globe to a country where they don't know anyone, don't know the customs and the religion is different. Don't buy into the dumb talking point that poor hordes are just coming to get gibs.

Attached: d0e39b824c4787b9f77a1f88c8f1a2b3929912c2154677ded571fd423986fe96.jpeg (1052x1236, 302.94K)

Though I am a Stalinist, and you and I are stereotyped to be mortal enemies because of our beliefs, I am willing to take you seriously. This is also the meme-iest place you could've posed this question to (of whether or not communism "works"), but also one of the few places most equipped to answer it.

I guess we should start off by asking what we mean by "works" – communism worked in the sense that it rivaled the dominant capitalist superpower for most of its existence, and kept the other 2/3rds of the planet that was capitalist scared shitless. If communism doesn't work, or is some sort of hollow enemy, then it shouldn't have been able to do this.

Some other common facts I would refer to here are the advancement of Russian society from horse and buggy to nuclear superpower in two generations. No other nation has accomplished that.

Secondarily, the 10 year drop in average lifespan in Russia post-USSR speaks for itself; people lived longer and healthier under the USSR than it did under capitalism. Adding to this point, there's many opinion polls which show that, for many reasons, Russians born in the USSR miss/prefer the Soviet Union.

I'm not trying to shill not socialism, I'm explaining my position and then trying to get you to explain to me what the economics of commyism is and what the benefits are. Some people gave some links n things since I've slept so I'll look at that.

thanks chums

its the dumb foreign wars for israel plus the incentives for the immigrants to come and all the resources thrown at the immigrants to make the travel as easy as possible.

Like I'm wanting some kind of source on things like comparing average standards of living, not the overall wealth of nations but the effects of the different economic systems on the overall wealth of nations. Cuz the video pointed out a bunch of disadvantages that east germany had and kinda showed that its more complicated than 'which nation would you rather live in' So I then came here and am open to being talking about that, or rather being given links and being talked at.

Israel is the vanguard of the USA in the middle east. Without the US, Israel would be overrun in a week. If you want to talk about geopolitics with communists you better get over this jewphobia.

shut the fuck up Miss Piggy

Well, the accumulation of wealth is not strictly a socialist goal, so it is not necessarily a metric of success. Luckily, we have the obvious modern example of China, where you can find endless statistics on the rapid rise of their standard of living in the last 40 years. This rise, I should add, is unreplicated by third world countries from a similar start date, like the 1980s when the first market reforms began in Chinese agriculture.

I should add that I'm a grad student in behavioral economics, so I can provide you some lines of inquiry which may help. Before that, a quick thing about the video: it IS more complicated than simply "which is better?" I frankly would consciously and enthusiastically choose to live in the USSR, the DDR, or in modern China (though I am waiting on China at the moment, for other reasons). But that is because I would be happy to say, work in GOSPLAN, have my guaranteed housing, food, etc. My kids could be artists, musicians, or get PhDs if they prove their aptitude. I have no such life here. This is a lifestyle of simple pleasures; little stress, but none of the orgastic highs of capitalism. Realistically, I will never be making a million dollars a year doing finance or something. At best, I will probably make a fair salary here and have to manage a bunch of things wisely in order to live well. In the USSR, for example, I would have no such worries. I may still never live like a king, but at least I am afforded the security and consistency of that society. Personally, that is much more appealing to me.

I wouldn't use wealth as the metric for standard of living. The modern USA is a good example for why that is – sure, measures of national or even average household wealth are quite high for Americans. BUT, very few Americans enjoy the privileges that wealth affords; most of them live lives in lower standards of living. There are more and more people in economics advocating for things like a "Happiness Index" to get a sense of how a country is doing. Personally, I think the HI concept is bullshit, but it does get one thing right: it takes a bunch of different measures (lifespan, employment rate, secondary education levels, etc.) to give a general picture of about how happy a population is.

Alec Nove's "Economic History of the USSR" is good for giving you some raw stats and info on the USSR's economy.

Robert Sutter's "Chinese Foreign Policy Since the Cold War" and David Shambaugh's "the Chinese Communist Party" will give you some insights into the standards of living in those nations. There are some more books I could dig up, but I do not have them on hand at the moment.

I hope this helps.

To illustrate my point about simple pleasures:

When I was in Undergrad, some of my friends and I would get together at one of our apartments, a bunch of cheap cigarettes and booze, a couple of us would cook and have a fine meal with excellent conversation late into the night. I do not hesitate to say that those are some of the happiest moments of my life. What is important about these nights are that we were all broke. as. shit. Among all of us, we could scrape together a few hundred USD or something, but we made the most of what we had.

The difference between this in the USSR and in modern capitalism is that in the USSR, there was no unspoken fear that any of us could/would end up on the street if we didn't play our cards exactly right. In modern capitalism, or the US, that money needed to last or we wouldn't afford //food//. Thus we could not exactly splurge to have these get-togethers; we needed to be at least a little smart (or, at least, smart until we started drinking).

Oh yeah, btw literacy rates in Russia skyrocketed after the revolution, and housing security ceased to be an issue. Those are significant achievements for nations of that size and population (especially with so little means to do so).

cool beans

Define race please so I can understand why the fuck its apparently more important then class.

"Interracial Couples May Make Taller, Smarter Children Due To Greater Genetic Diversity: Study"

medicaldaily.com/interracial-couples-may-make-taller-smarter-children-due-greater-genetic-diversity-341348

"Greater genetic diversity is linked to an increase in height and enhanced cognitive function, a new study finds. The research, involving more than 350,000 people worldwide, also revealed information about the apparent lack of a genetic link related to certain health problems."

cbsnews.com/news/new-study-finds-genetic-diversity-may-be-key-taller-smarter/

"Mixed-race relationships are making us taller and smarter: Children born to genetically diverse parents are more intelligent than their ancestors"

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3146070/Mixed-race-relationships-making-taller-smarter-Children-born-genetically-diverse-parents-intelligent-ancestors.html

"Shriver's work has uncovered something else that is very interesting. He finds that mixed-race people are more symmetrical than the rest of us, and being more symmetrical translates into being more attractive, having less infection, being less stressed, and having greater genetic diversity."

telegraph.co.uk/comment/6475543/Its-a-wonderful-mixed-up-world.html

Diverse parental genes lead to taller, smarter children, finds extensive study

The children of parents who are more distantly related tend to be taller and smarter than their peers, according to one of the largest studies to date into genetic diversity.

theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/02/diverse-parental-genes-lead-to-taller-smarter-children-says-extensive-study

BBC: Is It Better To Be Mixed Race? YES

"Farmers have known and used hybridization in plants and animals for centuries in order to produce improved and stronger plants. The resulting hybrids are often more resistant to environmental factors and diseases. Could this be the case in mixed-race individuals as well? Dr Aarathi Prasad investigates in this programme if there are advantages to have parents from two different races."

youtube.com/watch?v=lZZAckwJHsQ

vimeo.com/32542998

literaryames.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/breeding-between-the-lines-by-alon-ziv/>>127732

Judging by the images I am all for race mixing.

Attached: haileesteinfeldsmile.gif (640x800 92.95 KB, 80.43K)

Attached: chloebennet.jpg (600x450 8.85 KB, 68.29K)

Attached: emmamaewhite.jpg (613x320 1.51 MB, 5.52M)

Emma Mae may pass as full white but her mother is Japanese. It shows on her body and headshape.

Attached: Vanessa-Hudgens-yoga-body-2.jpg (183x276 112.09 KB, 5.75K)

So my point is that mixed race hotties are proof that we should mix races and mix them further.

Attached: laisribero1398_386084a3-5db0-465c-9ac2-7e3b7fc614b1.jpg (845x946 41.88 KB, 56.75K)

Why do spooked people care about skin color?

Light skinned and mixed black people get disrespected in the black community, meanwhile these people are usually the most outspoken about actually fixing the race problem lately.

I'm sure Caucasians go through this as well. Like an Italian marrying a Polish person.

I'm my opinion race mixing and eliminating race through our children might be the best solution anyway.

nazis btfo