wut? Yeah, but dictatorship implies theres only one ruler who would act against other potential rulers with violence.
Where is the part in socialism that implies one tendency has to be violent against other socialist tendencies?
Hitler HAD to remove them because their views were contrary to his.
Hey lefty pol
Angel Martinez
Connor White
So this is the brain of a Zig Forumsyp.
Luke Foster
In what way was Nazi germany socialist? Unless if you're an American who thinks welfare = socialism.
Christopher Peterson
Seriously Fuck Mutts. I REPEAT FUCK MUTTS. I fully support the SJWs and the corporations when they trigger the fuck out of you with some new black or trans pokemon. Fuck your video games, Fuck your tv shows fuck all your nerd shit and your culture there have to be blacks in every single video game. I want Gay porn and BLACKED to show up in all your pornhub recommendations.
Isaiah Williams
In what way? I'll start with this: what is capitalism? Or – what does a capitalist do? He gets some money together in the form of a loan, and buys labor plus machinery and puts these two things together to make a commodity, which he then sells for the initial cost plus a profit. That profit is then reinvested – it's recapitalized – for an expansion. This cycle of production and investment requires profit.
Likewise, capitalism now is so sophisticated that major corporations have a fiduciary obligation to their investors to seek a return; they could be sued otherwise. This is a big reason why capitalism is such a dynamic and explosive force in terms of growth. The world basically didn't grow at all (or only extremely slowly) for thousands of years and then growth went parabolic in the past 200 years or so.
And if you don't grow, your competitors will eat you.
Likewise, the bank is going to expect a return on the loan you took out. The financial system generally has been bound up with the history of capitalism since the beginning with the rise of Dutch commercial banking, since it's through financial innovation that capitalists are able to get the money for investment in the right place, at the right time, and in the right quantity. If the system does not grow – if it does not expand to every corner of the globe – then it will slow down and eventually collapse. The problem here is that profitability generally falls over time. You take on more and more debt to fund further expansion, and the cost of servicing the debt rises, or you build too much and profits generally begin to decline. It is very complicated, but the falling rate of profitability has been a consistent pattern throughout, and the approximate cause of major depressions in the history of capitalism, although it has amazingly found ways to dig itself out and restart the cycle. Obviously there was the Great Depression, which did not really end until World War II destroyed large amounts of excess capital in the world.
One reason there is so much financial speculation these days, you could argue from a Marxist perspective, is that we've been sustained on the back of rebuilding the global economy after World War II – which was highly profitable. But there's nowhere else for all the money to go to seek a return, and profitability has been slowly on the decline for decades worldwide, so capitalism is seeking out profits now in basically gambling on rising asset prices: wadding up all the money into a big ball and throwing it at whatever looks like it will make a return no matter how stupid. Like Elon Musk or whatever. Housing becomes very expensive for example. This creates very destabilizing asset bubbles like we saw with the 2008 financial crisis, and there is a lot of talk now that another one may be looming.
I'll add that you can study the Great Depression to learn what capitalism looks like when growth is not automatic. The U.S. dollar suffered massive deflation, money appreciated more value when hidden under a mattress than it did in a bank, because there were too many failed investments, i.e. investments that do not result in growth. Basically "everyone needs to get paid." All the mechanisms of capitalism create economic gridlock when there is no profit to be made. You can't employ anyone, you can't feed anyone, because everyone in the supply chain is demanding a profit. Instead of coming together in times of hardship, people scatter. It's the reason communism and socialism were so popular during the Great Depression.
So what is the Nazi analysis of this? "The Jews did it." They are a convenient scapegoat, in part because Jews – due to a variety of cultural and historical reasons – have been bound up in commercial banking. The Nazi economy, in practice however, was a credit-fueled bubble expanded to finance rearmament which was then directed by necessity into a war that killed millions of communists. From our perspective, fascism is a metastatic and basically insane reaction that emerges from within capitalism when it is faced with a deep enough crisis. It offers to "save" capitalism by redirecting anger onto its signifiers: Jews. Its "solution" is warfare. This is why it burns hot and then burns out, with appalling consequences.
The communist project is to break out of the commodity as a structuring force in society: destroying the machine (capitalism) that has enslaved humanity.
Cooper Harris
(me)
The Nazis believed they were fighting a war against a global conspiracy of Jewish sorcerers. It makes sense, if that's what you believe, that'd you try to wipe them out. The main thing is that even if the things Nazis say about Jews is true, their obsession with Jews is still pathological because they require this image of the Jew to sustain their own politics instead of facing to the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism.
The most you can demand from anyone in this world is a minimum standard of mutual respect.
Hudson Brown
uhhh Nazi Germany had a government so it's socialist, duh
Gabriel Harris
I'm a white guy who grew up with an all white family and I don't hate white people but the "w.hite genocide" thing is a total fabrication. When I first started coming here we used to have a thread about it every once and a while and the general consensus is 1) that it's a myth and 2) if it is real it's something that would be halted by abolishing capitalism so that should take priority over any social engineering or whatever.
Usually it isn't discussed much these days and most of us aren't interested in it but since I know Zig Forums is genuinely concerned about it and you appear to be in good faith I'll give you some things to check out. Also I'm very sorry but it's going to have to be a 2 part post but I swear i tried to keep it brief
1)I hate to direct you to a liberal right off the bat because you'll probably think I'm trying to promote him but I genuinely don't know of any actual Communists (except for BadMouse but his video has more to do with the Globalism side of "w.hite genocide" rather than hard statistics and demographic data so I'm saving his video for later when i get to that point) who have done a good analysis of the claims regarding w.hite genocide and all the other libs I've seen who tried are just really really smug and annoying about it including Hbomberguy who is a faggot and a grifter who is first against the wall when the revolution happens imo.
The guy's voice is a bit grating so if you don't want to actually watch the video I recommend just reading the sources he provided in the description box to support his arguments.
youtu.be
2)There's a book out now that suggests the world population might actually drop to zero or near zero by 2100 or something like that. And they mean everywhere too not just in the West. Their claim comes from data across several studies that shows birthrates are declining everywhere, even in brown countries, albeit more slowly due to the increase in economic development (I can understand Zig Forums not considering this since a lot of them seem to think the majority of Africans still live in mudhuts and that all of Africa looks like the slum in that video of people literally eating dirt)
wired.com
Now to be fair I haven't read the book and have just read a few interviews these guys did and idk what impact if any their research has had in the greater field but from the articles I've read their data and sources seem solid
3) the general trend for the last 30 years has been to manage immigration and immigrants rather than a blanket invitation for them to come to western countries and do whatever the hell they want (although I will concede that many pc liberal pieces of shit do literally say this and I hate it because it turns a fuckload of people away from Leftism). Basically what I mean by manage is, let enough immigrants in so that they are a cheap source of labor that can be used to drive down the wages of domestic laborers but not so much that it breaks this system or causes too much resentment among the domestic laboring population and causes the ruling class to have to shut down their operation. I'll post some sources on this if you really want me to but it's pretty easy to read about with some simple googling.
Basically just look at how Barack Obama deported more immigrants then any modern president including everyone from the first Bush up to the second Bush combined. Look at how Angela Merkel pivoted on the "flood" of Somalian immigrants recently and now is slowing and eventually will cut off the flow. To be fair on the Merkel point I've heard the argument that this was a concession to the Right that wouldn't have happened if there hadn't been a strong anti-immigrant movement in the first place but if you look at the state of Germany's real economy you begin to see that it moreso has to do with having achieved the sufficient number of laborers needed to prop up Germany's current economic model (I admittedly am not an expert on Germany's economy so if some smarter comrades itt could help me out on this point it would be greatly appreciated)
Continued and concluded in next post
Wyatt Mitchell
Continued from
4) Think for a moment about the argument liberals always make in favor of immigration. How many times have you heard some variant of; "Immigrants come here and do the hard and dirty jobs nobody else will do and also pay into the welfare system!" Basically they are saying that with immigrants doing all the hard work and paying into the system without reaping the benefits due to their status as illegals or in a legal gray zone not only does the Liberal Elite now not have hordes of organized workers who they can't deport at a moments notice if they get angry about having to do hard work without a raise in wages, they can keep up appearances of caring about the working class do to being able to give people their pensions and so on without having to create more jobs for domestic laborers due to said immigrants.
This suggests that the Liberal Elites in the Ruling Class are more concerned with promoting immigration and accompanying it with virtue signalling about blanket acceptance of immigrants no matter how much their culture clashes with that of the domestic population not to erase and replace white people but rather as part of a larger economic process to keep neoliberal globalization trucking without having to actually increase welfare spending and also without (they think) creating the conditions for worker revolt. If the domestic laborers do start to revolt you can deepen divisions easily between the working class by turning immigration into a Culture Wars issue and then when someone like Trump comes along you get to have a big chunk of the working class and middle class calm down because he appears to be fixing a problem that was never a problem and in fact an easy fix for a ruthlessly hypocritical economic system for the Elite
5) Final point: the welfare that many complain immigrants are stealing is largely gone at this point. The most basic programs are left untouched so that what us happening in France right now doesn't become a global movement but much of what even immigrants perceive as being a robust nanny state has been either completely abolished or privatized in the current capitalist era of neoliberal globalization. Read Zizek's piece about this here he articulates it way better than I can
lrb.co.uk
Also watch BadMouse's video about how the rhetoric of the left leaning Anti-Globalization Movement has been evolved by the Right into the creeping threat of "Globalism" I think you'll enjoy it
youtu.be
Sorry this went on so long but you seem to be an open minded and good faith Nazi and I really appreciate you asking for a true Left appeal on these subjects. I wanted to give you something in depth and introduce you to some of the avenues I took to despook myself of some of this shit and I hope that if you don't completely give up your Nazism you at least become NAZBOL GANG
(2/2)
Liam Gutierrez
The ruling elite will ally with fascists everytime socialists and communists start getting power.