I am a Not Socialist willing to see your side of the story. What do you think about the statement:

Also, regarding the cooperative nature:
Is it possible that such cooperative nature gradually fades as genetic distance decreases?

People are usually altruistic towards
Family>Nation>Race>World
Isn't this biology (ingroup preference and everything)

We seem to differ in definitions. By individualistic I meant what % of resources are shared and general compassion towards your own.

No
You are still a capitalist even though you don't buy into the libertarian death ideologies of toxic liberalism. Just because you wish for state intervention at some points of the process of capital, does not make you an anti-capitalist, only an idealist useful idiot to capital.

How is this individualistic? If the bulk of societal product is only accessible to a small group in society, isn't this the polar opposite to individualism?
I'm defining individualism as free association, and self mastery.

Communism is individualistic as apposed to fascism that could be considered collectivist.
I'll need a fact to back that up. Also, not being exploited can help even the strongest man.

Also hitler's quote makes him look like even more of an idiot.

Damn right you are

Attached: 540760d0062d136f67ceb88520f6a7311310f15b.jpg (536x794, 66.44K)

individualism and collectivism are wholly meaningless distinctions that exist solely as propaganda talking points meant to slander an opposing ideology

I wouldn't say genetics, I can feel great solidarity with someone that is outside of my family but people do become more apathetic as actual distance increases.
People who care about the race/nationality of the person in order to feel solidarity gotta stop being so spooked.

Have you actually read the books yourself, or are you just copy/pasting what some other guy said?
I'd say the wages of destruction sheds very positive light (sure, there were some bad aspects and critiques) on the NS economy.

Those groups were very very very low in numbers. If such is the case, you could make a statement that families live under communism because they distribute resources from each according to his ability to each according to his need.

I said unbridled capitalism. Productive, non-usury capitalism is still good, but let's not go there, it'll be an endless meaningless debate as I see from my experience.

I was talking about pure communism, as that is your ideal, I guess?

dailywire.com/news/16850/study-weak-men-more-likely-be-socialists-amanda-prestigiacomo
Find the paper yourself, I read it about 6 months ago.

Agreed

Countless studies have shown that social cohesion decreases with a genetic distant person present in the society.

Marx explicitly wrote about communism being a society where the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. Marxism emphasises the importance of the individual and wants to see individuals liberate themselves so that they can genuinely develop themselves. Under capitalism most people being workers (as well as many capitalists) are alienated, reduced to an instrument of production, detached from their own lives and from their fellows. Capitalist society atomises us, impedes the creation of families and breaks up communities. There is no individual under capitalism, he is constantly eroded by the inhuman logic of capital accumulation.

Humans are incredibly weak animals. We have limited capabilities for survival, against predators or to sustain ourselves. Our evolutionary strengths which have made us our world's dominant species are 1. our intelligence allowing us to plan/imagine 2. our ability for complex communication allowing us to convey these to others and 3. our ability to hold and use tools with our hands. These are entirely useless alone and for a single person. No human can survive alone. We are intrinsically a social species entirely dependent on forming large complex societies which allow us to fulfill our basic needs. 'Nature' is by definition descriptive rather than prescriptive and these are the features which are unique to humans and our particular nature.

I don't care about my family, unless I do.
I don't care about my nation, because my nation doesn't care about me.
I don't give a flying fuck about my race, I do not identify as white, despite being white. Same reason I don't identify as blue eyed - It's a meaningless identity.
No. Your in-group is not determined by your genes, it is determined by who you grew up with and commune with.
Or who the TV convinces you is your in-group.

and commute with*

I agree, unbridled capitalism atomizes a people greatly (as we can witness all over the world). But by atomizing them, doesn't it make them more individualistic?

I absolutely agree, but isn't that just a justification for the ol' fascist "United we are stronger"?. But still, what I meant with human nature is that generally a problem of motivation. People have a stronger National identity (history, race, culture), rather than a economic(class) identity. World Wars are a clear demonstration of this, especially WW1.

Your in-group preference actually is objectively determined by genetic distance, according to modern biology.

Attached: 450e3c1e77b78e4457ac75c23852fa9fd77443abc70bf0bc8fef1af4773b8bfe.png (897x534, 72.64K)

Inb4 he cites some study that only shows correlation.

"human nature" varies from time to time and place to place i.e. socially conditioned… also communism is in the self interest of the collective i.e. everybody
as for your "MUH WEAK PEOPLE" shit, you're coming off as a soulless neckbeard.

I… guess? Why does this matter?
I guess nation and shit are pushed much harder than class because if they were to have class consciousness, it would be dangerous for the ruling class.
Human nature is malleable and the only thing that is really set in stone are survival instincts and the fact we will generally act in perceived self interest.

...

Hitler was a fucking scamming piece of shit who stumbled his way into destroying his nation like a complete dumb ass, and it only lasted a short period of time compared to the left's long window before and after.

It's like how radical right today is playing out, short, bitter, full of embarrassment, and an inevitable suicide

No, it just makes them lonely.

Yeah show me your sources then. And remember, as another user said, correlation=/=causation.

The individual only exists within a collective. It is a consequence of our social nature. Human ability exists on an immensely broad spectrum of potentiality.
Consider the case of so called 'feral' children, if a human is isolated and does not interact with others, does not communicate, doesn't learn, then even if they are kept or remain alive they are less developed than a housecat. This is not individualism surely? They can be hardly described as an individual except perhaps in the most reductive sense of being 'one', that is alone.
Then take the fact that with rigorous education a child can master several languages and play an instrument by the age of 4. This is to this day primarily seen in the children of aristocratic families afforded the highest quality of education.
A useful analogy might be of man as a mirror. A mirror may be of various types, a flat or curved surface, fat or thin, concave or convex. Regardless suspended in a void a mirror reflects nothing.
In any environment it will reflect it, remaining a simple and crude image of its surroundings. But only when one in a hall of mirrors can it become an individual, that is a unique one, surrounded by others all reflecting their environment and eachother, warping the reflection of their surroundings and creating a unique image.
I don't know what you mean by 'motivation'. Motivation to what?
As for 'identity'. There are different people. Some people consider themselves poles first and foremost. Some consider themselves workers first. Some consider themselves their family first. You cite WW1 as proof of national identity winning out, but at the same time as WW1 the men who were fighting for the Russian Empire frequently saw themselves as workers first before russians or letts or khazaks and were willing to shoot their own officer in the back and join a revolution for their interest as workers. Which is not to mention that the national identity and especially the sort of national chauvinist fervour which emerged in WW1 was actively propagated by the capitalist classes in order to send millions of workers to their deaths fighting eachother over the profit of industrialists and financiers.

If you have a group (say, the US, Brazil), and you have different ethnicities inside, people will always associate more with their own.
There are studies on mice with this stuff. Sure, there are social bonds, but they are much weaker than ethnic bonds. That's why you see blacks always jump in for blacks and whites always jump in for whites in a fight (a retarded example).

We kinda went off the tracks with this. My point is pure communism is the extreme collectivism, pure capitalism is extreme individualism. Both are wrong.

Pretty sure he didn't make everyone equal. He just helped raise the spirit and the strength of the collective.

"..German people, help yourselves. For there is somebody always somebody in a worse situation than you, somebody you can help.."

How exactly did he destroy his nation?
People were the happiest and the fullest with life then (as witnessed by the birthrates that rose quickly) Also, 0 unemployment.

Isn't racism (boogeyman) completely natural?

heartiste.wordpress.com/diversity-proximity-war-the-reference-list/

Here's some fun stuff for you to read trough

Attached: 500px-US_Birth_Rates.svg.png (500x377, 20.4K)

I wonder sometimes, if you deliberately act stupid, or are actually stupid

Attached: 86f1e3e74f61b1d6d7aa72c095bcd153ea464201442138084430476da0f6f0a7.jpg (600x609, 59.24K)

"against predators" is the only one here thats true, and its only true for very large predators. humans have the most powerful, accurate, long distance throw in the animal kingdom, and can walk or jog longer than almost anything else on land. we're bigger than most non-apex predators too and have a flexible diet.
theres a reason other, earlier, species of homo that were significantly less intelligent(from our perspective- still some of the smartest animals around) and had no capacity for language still thrived for hundreds of thousands of years before us, user. stop spreading this awful, untrue, 'humans aren't fit for nature we only have our smarts' meme.
t. not a primmie I swear

theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/are-socialists-physically-weak/533787/

This argument is irrelevant to modern society. People lived in communal societies as a necessity for survival (and even then there were often very strict hierarchies in those communities), that is not a reality anymore.

yeah and good luck being able to throw things whether its rocks or javelins and fighting or hunting without a society to support you. Without being raised for over a decade of your life, fed and protected by a community, taught to use tools and observed how to hunt and fight by older humans. My point wasn't that we are unfit for nature but rather that we are a social species, not that we can't survive the wild, but that we can't survive it alone. We don't just need others to survive, we are made of others in everything that makes us adaptive and capable creatures.

Just to clear this up. No.

I might have come off as too individualistic in this post, but I'm not. I know that there are no more individual men than there are individual trees in the forest.

What is exactly emotionally/instinctually tying people to their class? The suffering? I'd say people have more suffering on a national level than on a class level. Though I agree that all wars are 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧bankers🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 wars. Also, isn't national chauvinism kinda normal? We are a tribal species, and a nation is just a larger tribe.

le lets blame the man who got ganged-up upon by the international 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧elite🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 rather than the elite itself meme. If Hitler had died in '39, he would be known as the greatest leader of our time.

I knew somebody would be a smart-ass. That isn't my primary source, I just posted it so people can have a reference about what study I was refering to. You can find the original study no problemo, as I read it a few months to a year ago.

How is it not? The individual property and the individual itself practically are non-existent.

From your own source

And apparently it wasn't you, since the source I provided offered another view on the study. To give any one view as being a truth is simply to take the findings and try to fit them to your own political agenda, when in reality, they don't hold up.

HURRRRRRR DURRR HURRRRRRRR, AHUUUURRRRRR
I wont go easy on you for saying stupid shit because "the point" was half right.
Half. A person absolutely can survive in the wild on their own just fine, since they can in fact crack nuts and throw rocks at gazelle without a society backing them up. Social groups of humans thrive and reproduce themselves much better than lone wolves though, hence why humans are as yo usay social.

Just because you don't have a boss telling you where to shit doesn't mean you aren't an individual.
If you really do tie a person's business to his "individuality" then you are a lost cause.

This disproves the study how exactly?
brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/Muscular-men-less-likely-to-support-social-and-economic-equality-study-suggests

Here's the study itself, but the link is down, at least for me.

Nothing I guess. People only cling to race etc because they've been brought up with that teaching. Same thing with love for a feudal lord or god. They do it because they're told to.

Personal property exists, we don't take toothbrushes. I don't get the "individual is gone" part.

Called it

I mean good job, that's precisely the point that marx made.

Class isn't intrinsically an identity, it can be since anything can be made an identity. However class is simply a position in society in relation to how a society produces all the things its members need to survive. That is those who use violence or the threat of violence to maintain absentee ownership of tools and resources are one class and those who have neither tools nor resources and live by renting out their ability to use tools and resources to produce goods are another. There are other configurations such as peasants, slaves or artisans but these are no longer dominant in a world where a single capitalist society dominates the globe.
Communism is not about people identifying as workers. A vast majority of people are workers, whether they like it or not, whether they consider themselves workers or not. That is the position they are relegated to in the economic life of our society. Communism is rather about the realisation that due to you being in this position it is in your interest to break out of it and organise society along lines which do not place you in a disadvantageous position.
A nation is not a larger tribe. A tribe is a community of people. They know eachother, they are friends and coinhabit with one another. A nation is an imaginary community of people who do not know eachother, who have never met, formed by the political convenience of the powerful.

Yeah a baby can totally survive on its own in the wild throwing rocks at gazelles, good fucking job. Your 'person' is someone who has had the benefit of already being raised by society, already having been fed, kept safe, taught what food is and how to get it. Humans don't exist alone.

thats true of most fucking animals including solitary ones.
They were raised by one parent, like an ostrich or a cassowary, then thrown into the wild when they were self sufficient.
Aliens are doing an experiment and glassing any site where too many humans start forming a social group at once, to force us to evolve into solitary animals here. They still survive. Society is not neccessary for a single human to survive, just very beneficial, to the point we're very strongly psychologically adapted for a social existence.

Haha yeah and essentially bribing people to have large families and putting heavy restrictions on women working had nothing to do with that.

Haha yeah and the Nazis cooking the books on employment numbers totally had nothing to do with that.

I swear to fucking god you lot are the only things that make me go full ☭TANKIE☭

inb4 the response- humans take longer to reach self sufficiency and have more dangerous pregnancies.
thats true, it doesnt make a social group absolutely necessary, just better than the alternative.
that is to say, if social groups became impossible because aliens started killing any sufficiently large group of humans to see if they could force evolution into solitary animals, lots of humans would still survive, and evolve less dangerous pregnancies and faster maturation times if the aliens kept it up.

Nope. You’re conflating racism with every sign of in group preference.
Its essentially saying the “tail wags the dog”. That aside, even if it were natural, claiming it’s due to naturalness is a fallacy.

This is a personal anecdote and it doesn't mean shit in reality, but anyway: I was brought up without nationalism, and without racial love (or knowledge about the existance of race for that matter), yet I still turned out the way I did.

It was demonstrated all over the animal kingdom, including mouses and humans.

academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/116/1/351/1939071

heartiste.wordpress.com/diversity-proximity-war-the-reference-list/

funny stuff

Is your house personal property? By what standard do you measure what is and what is not?

What caused it then? Sometimes correlation does imply causation, and you are just pretending to be smart.

Why doesn't it spike now, in the darkest of times?

It can, but not all identities are equal. Most peoples ethnic/national identity is stronger, as far as the world shows.

A tribe is a group of distinct people, dependent on their land for their livelihood, who are largely self-sufficient, and not integrated into the national society.

According to the definition of a tribe, it kinda is. Also, when I say nation, I mean a country in which people share common ethnicity/blood.

It's called monetary help
are you okay?
in the 1940es and the pre-war period there were more women women working than in America, UK and France. in 1941/2, in some regions it reached 70%. Source: Wages of Destruction.

Official historical numbers retard. Countless sources. WoD is just one of them.

Whenever men rebel against the iron logic of nature, they are, in essence, fighting against the principles that gave rise to them. Therefore, such a fight can only lead to the downfall of man.

And again, my point stands. Not to mention their exists prior studies that argue that strong poormen still prefer redistribution cep.ucsb.edu/papers/2013Petersen_PsychologicalScience.pdf?ijkey=aQgdXL1bx/R8k&keytype=ref&siteid=sppss

Perhaps the reasons for these phenomenons are slightly more nuanced then just saying "leftists are weak", but as we all know, nazis aren't the best at nuance.

If racism is defined as discrimination based on race, then it is completely natural.

The fact that racism is natural has a few implications for society. Going against nature has never been any good, and we in Europe are starting to see that. Also, read the last sentence of

heartiste.wordpress.com/diversity-proximity-war-the-reference-list/

Linking this for the third time this thread.

*claiming it’s good due to naturalness

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/oscar-wilde-the-soul-of-man-under-socialism

Attached: 4376bcfb2196082ed33d8da86e405e0f2ec0aae9597dee6a0899a70d3e66cb39.jpg (1478x1037, 326.01K)

my point was this: people working against their self interest are physically weaker (rich people who want to distribute wealth clearly aren't working in self-interest).

Lefties usually work against self-interest by being anti-racist and humanitarian.

Prove it’s not just a sign of in-group, out-group preference then. That’s not an inherently racist phenomena.
This is just becoming a naturalistic fallacy
Yeah, this is just the naturalistic fallacy.

I don't see how this holds then, as we have been saying, class conflict is driven by selfishness

Not wanting conflict between people based on skin color sounds pretty self interested to me. So does creating a society where every human has a dignified life.

You’re just begging for the stirnerist to show up, aren’t you?

This is so fascistic in spirit, you wouldn't believe it. I believe Evola has a similar quote.

But still, I believe private property can be nurtured but still not held up as something to strive for.

Open borders/ little limited migration is a leftist policy.
Also, the group that has the most humanitarians and the most anti-racist people(people without in-group preference) is the group worst off. I'll try to find a study, altrough i read it a long time ago

Studies prove that having a person of different ethnicity in 80m range increases anxiety and decreases social trust.

Naturalistic 'fallacy' is not a fallacy at all. Something having arisen by itself has huge implications.

not saying you can't work towards it. It's just a rare case to witness.

...

Ethnic diversity study, found it:
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6cbf/bde9877fc4b764b54899a05c9d4ea96f19fc.pdf

ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html
I stumbled upon this a few days ago, might help ya.

I can't seem to find the study on humanitarian ism and lessened group preference. Had it in pdf a while ago.

Nice spooks retard
Was gonna effortpost but fuck it.
Egoist Gang reporting for duty.

You like "muh private property"? Why?
You seem to be implying that you can't have an in-group if you ignore race.
Lemmie fix that for you

Attached: 17.jpg (992x880, 157.09K)

You are aware that the entire rhetoric of fascism is word for word taken from marxism right?
You have no idea what 'private property' means do you?
wrong.
still confusing correlation for causation
You are very clearly confused by liberal humanist thinking which views man as something outside of nature. Nature is not prescriptive, it is a descriptive phenomenon. Everything that happens is natural by definition. 'Natural' is a false category as it encompasses everything. Nothing can be 'un'natural. The idea that we can 'go against' nature is very silly in and of itself.

The derail squad has come, I was warned of this. I'm not even sure what exactly a 'spook' is.

Let me ask you the reverse: Why don't you like private property? Also, this will turn into an endless debate that will go on for hours and in the end go nowhere. Had it countless times.

You can have it, but racial preference is very important (especially in America, Brazil) , because race is clearly visible.

Fascism has it's roots in roman society, and it was just perfected later by fascist philosophers. Also, I'm not a fan of Mussolini, and I know he was a marxist.

I used the world nurtured wrongly, english is not my first language. And yes, I do know what people generally mean when they say private property.

It generally is a lefty policy. Maybe not your own.

Well what else could be causing it? You can say 'correlation does not equal causation' about almost any study. But sometimes, it does.

We have different definitions of nature, clearly

1. humans are a social species
ingroup preference is sociological, not biological, any other view is retarded and A-historical
2. Loaded terminology like "weak" or "strong" is meaningless.
What we determine to be weak or strong is entirely dependent on what our first principles are, a nutt-succ like you will claim dogmatic racism is a strong virtue because you presuppose the inherent value in the preservation of an arbitrary group. A communist will see pro-social, anti-capitalist thought as strong or "good" starting from the first principle that either it is preferable to to individually partake in a portion of what the bourgeois class has stolen rather than it exist as a whole out of their reach or from a standpoint of ecological consciousness, etc.

Attached: oobo.PNG (237x268, 162.01K)

if anyone wanted to take this in the stupid way:
that means that what constitutes the 'in group' is sociological, not biological.
not that the existence of ingroup preference is a social construct.

People take my labour and make cash of it.
I don't receive the product of my labour.
Only for people with no social skills who have to compensate by saying "us browns should stick together"
Absolutely sectarian
It's a neoliberal policy to get an army of cheap labour
They're afraid of people finding out they like the BBC. They're all spooked.

So you're saying that being a racist sociopath is acting in one's self-interest? wew lad

The point was that socialism would facilitate a greater level of self-determination for humanity. Fascism does just the opposite by subjugating the vast majority of the population for the benefit of a small few.
People on the left wish to eliminate the primary causes of mass immigration such as imperialism and economic exploitation
Worst off in what regard? Its no secret that the capitalist system tends to financially reward sociopathic behavior, but can you really say that's a good thing? Crab-bucket mentality does not produce a healthy society

Feels.
Fascism stole its aesthetics from Roman society, it's ideology and praxis are both nothing more but hyper conservative deviations from liberalism intended to preserve bourgeois control
Vaguery.
Open borders is anathema to Marxism ontologically, under communism there are no nations to begin with
Literally feels.

Attached: obboo.PNG (3200x3800, 115.82K)

this illustrates an ignorance of history and fascism found only among fascists.
when it comes to using marxist rhetoric i was referring to Hitler. Mussolini's rhetoric was drawn from the French syndicalist tradition of Sorel etc.
generally is the key word here. Words have different meanings when used in casual conversation and when used a specialist terminology. When looking at what a political movements stance on private property is, then you should be aware of what private property means in terms of political economics not 'what people generally mean' .
its a liberal policy, not a leftist one.
Most immigrants are poor by virtue of being immigrants, poverty strongly correlates to crime and thus it is reasonable that proximity to people of different ethnicities cause anxiety as we fear being the victims of crime. Studies also show a strong correlation between fear of crime and poor neighbourhoods. There is no reason to believe that we experiance anxiety simply due to proximity to someone of different ethnicity. I doubt you would see this reaction between an italian and a belgian or a laotian and a peruvian in a business meeting or at a restaurant for example. The material conditions are the causes of our reactions.
Yes, your idea of nature is as some sort of prescriptive quality based on liberal emotional appeals whereas i perceive nature as a scientific, physical reality.

Which is a vestigial tail of ingroup, outgruop behavior. I said prove it wasn’t

It is though. You’re trying to derive an objective ought from what is. Also, man subjugates nature to himself constantly. This how societies were built.

oh my god man it's always this fucking shit

>dailywire.com/news/16850/study-weak-men-more-likely-be-socialists-amanda-prestigiacomo
You have got to be fucking shitting me dude

Attached: 1523260638213.jpg (1024x1064, 120.92K)

Attached: 1523255203651.png (925x1219, 1.31M)

The Nazi's were funded by and worked with the fucking Warburgs en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_family. To have a single Jew helping the bolsheviks out and who eventually turned his back on them isn't an argument when I can name numerous Jews within any movement, especially any fascists.