Hes still a crapitalist

>The division of a nation into economic classes, the control of society by those who hold the most material value
that is not modern

so you really think that materialism wont degrade our society

How do you plan to fix it?

Yes it is. It only came about after the I industrial revolution ie the modern era. Before that we had aristocratic monarchy.

Materialism isn't something I would promote but if someone wants to be a materialist you have no right to stop him. Capitalism doesn't make you a materialist, who's stopping you from living in a cabin in the woods and eating berries, are you that weak willed you need an authoritarian figure to guide you through life and tell you what's right and what's wrong?

i have my ways

Attached: 1513397310369.jpg (618x803, 114K)

BASED

Attached: evola-1_0.jpg (400x274, 20K)

>free market society is the only one that works
Free market societies have only existed recently. You think that 5000 years of human civilization didn't work? You think our current global, soulless, degenerate societies work. (((Freedom))) is a Jewish meme.

You still had classes
Even ignoring the merchant class wealthy nobles still wielded more influence than poor ones

>Materialism isn't something I would promote but if someone wants to be a materialist you have no right to stop him. Capitalism doesn't make you a materialist, who's stopping you from living in a cabin in the woods and eating berries, are you that weak willed you need an authoritarian figure to guide you through life and tell you what's right and what's wrong?
by ads , media and other type of brainwashing you can make any man materialistic

>if someone wants to be a materialist you have no right to stop him.
Spoken like a proud cuck

Kys individualist. To take an atomized view of humanity is pants-shitting retarded. Everything we do and think is interfaced with a perceived tribe. Your "rights" are horseshit and a product of the equally retarded (((enlightenment))).

Capitalists have always exist

Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

So are you a reactionary or a national socialist?

Clerical Fascism

>A is bad because idk

Capitalists are fathered by me. They all represent me.

Attached: 42058489_488124634987377_4304969.jpg (792x767, 36K)

not specifically natsoc , more like fascist

Attached: 1516115526469.gif (297x229, 2.22M)

What do you mean by capitalist? Most sane people mean free market voluntary transactions when they use the word, and there's literally no good argument against it.

Merchants have always exist. This isn't the same as capitalists.

There are no groups. Only individuals

Evola was pretty based.
Also he was right.
What the left memes as "late stage capitalism" is a real problem though. Planned obsolescence, monopolies by TNCs and much more are real problems. I know none of you freedumb loving americans want to face it, but I dont want to buy my food, car, computer and dog all through amazon or nestle because no other business can compete due to economies of scale

Have you been brainwashed by advertising then?

>Merchants have always exist.
So have capitalists

Also, have some more evola

Attached: 4f0145a6d879bddfebb9a36282328573772959da_1_690x403.jpg (690x403, 114K)

Free market is just unrestricted trade. Governements in the past didn't have the man power to enforce much restrictions on trade, just see colonial america. Smuggling was rampant and the British govt. couldn't do much to stop it.

Monarchy is a system of government, not economics

Real human progress is determined by the distribution of wealth though. If you disagree then clearly you don't need anything and should have bo problem under either system. Of course that's not true as you need a certain amount of wealth to do anything besides die in a ditch. Even if you could forage for everything you need a communist society would steal most of that to give to the people too lazy to forage.

fuck off kike

Attached: 1535427429377.png (1331x896, 459K)

i not materialistic , i am not doing drugs , buying useless shit because an ad told me so
you americans how ever

(((capitalism))) is just as bad as (((communism))).

>literally no good argument against it
>I took econ 101, debate me.

What a retarded reductionist statement. It means nothing.

"Capital" didn't really exist until the industrial revolution.

This.

You can't have a totally free market society and an aristocracy.

Give one then. Why should people be restricted from trading voluntarily?
Not all Americans are materialists, so how do you know they are generally helpless against advertising brainwashing? I don't think anyone can be "brainwashed" by advertising, although it can surely influence people if they are unaware of its tactics.

what about hitler
he dropped gold standard yet germany prospered

How is it reductive? I can show you individual(s), but groups don't exist in the real world, only as a concept.

What are you talking about
People had been funding merchant expeditions and buying land since the beginning of time

If the monarch doesn't or can't interfere or enforce restrictions then you can

>Not all Americans are materialists, so how do you know they are generally helpless against advertising brainwashing? I don't think anyone can be "brainwashed" by advertising, although it can surely influence people if they are unaware of its tactics.
well maybe you arent that easy to brainwashed by advertisements , good for , but situation is different for most of the people in your country

How do you know? Have you met most of the people in the US?

There is argument against it in the OP. People being to trade voluntarily opens society up to a host of evils. When everything can be monetized, money becomes the sole source of political power. What your left with is a civilization mired in the material, chasing ephemeral pleasure. Things that are conducive to a healthy society as a whole (tradition, religion, family) are tossed aside if they don't abet production. monopolies are natural and a few megalithic entities will be able to control society through advertising and other means. These entities' sole goal will be deepening their pockets, and society will suffer for it.

oh come on , your average american is 150kg fat fuck who drives on his wheelchair and eats in mcdonalds , he is also your average libertarian

Neither of those things are capital.

This desu

Attached: 1519604879845m.jpg (791x1024, 133K)

its almost like this guys ideas dont exist in the real world cause they couldnt compete on a market against communims
fuck thats got to hurt

making money off your investments is the definition of a capitalist

Ok first of all the free market has never existed, some governments have enacted free market policies but a true free market has never existed. Your problem is with crony capitalism and totalitarian governments
Everyone has a right to promote every ideology they choose, again nobody is stopping you from promoting spiritualism, nobody forces you to buy ANYTHING
Imagine being so dumb you put one of the greatest European achievements in jewish parentheses. I pity you friend
If you really were against bankers having the monopoly on currency you would be a libertarian, also correlation does not equal causation. The wages dropped around the same time the USA started taking in every "poor and huddled mass" on the planet, who would have known unlimited immigration would be drop wages, jeez
Have you heard of the Human Development Index? What kind of index only measures distribution of wealth to determine human progress? What does economics have to do with me not wanting to live in an authoritarian shithole? I do not get you to be honest

Value is in the economic alone.
When people stop placing money towards greater things the way Aristocrats and monarchies would commission exploration, art, science, all that.
Capitalism in it's original form and as it should be is a great form of allocating resources and understanding demand while advancing science and society through improvement and spurring on growth and evolution.

When discussing Evola, you have to understand his perspective, the man loved his Aristocrats and didn't believe in equality.

Seem like a semantic argument on what defines existence. I don't know how that's a counter-argument to mine. If groups only exist as a concept, it's a concept deeply rooted in our biology. Everything in our psyche is meant to interface with the group.

So how would socialism or fascism retain tradition, through force? Have fun handing power to unelected bureaucrats, because we know how effective they've been with taxpayer money

Only through God can you uphold tradition, because it is through God that tradition is built and maintained. I don't want to see a State that usurps God and creates a religion in its own right, as has been the case with large states

Attached: 1499224581747.png (1576x2358, 3.36M)

Free markets don’t actually exist. You’re fucking delusional if you think there is anything approaching a free market and that the consumer in these free markets isn’t as much of a pay pig as the communist. Admittedly, the capitalist slave gets better return on their forced payment in terms of goods and services than the communist slave. But they are slaves nonetheless.

Attached: jilletteatomwaffen.png (1280x1699, 656K)

based. pic related.

Attached: 12345678.jpg (1000x1000, 173K)

No, making money off of the rent of physical capital is the definition of capitalism. You could argue that horses and ploughs count as capital but these inputs were always negligible compared with land. Capitalism only starts with the advent of machinery.

Exploration was driven purely by economic concerns. The only reason aristocrats (or bankers) would fund exploration because of the potential capital that can be found. It's why mercantilists like the various East India Companies acted as rulers of these overseas territories, it wasn't aristocrats funding some higher cause. They were driven by the same capitalistic desires that Evola denounced

gold standard wouldn't be a singular factor, even though that image is pointing at it. Of course immigration affected it, so did more and more women entering the work force.

Have any proof to back up that claim?How does voluntary transaction open up a host of evils any more than government regulation? What exactly are you thinking would happen if there were no regulations or restrictions on trade?
How are we wired to deal with a group? Can you actually prove that? I'm not thinking about groups ever, only specific people. The only "group" I care enough about is my family, which is a bunch of individuals, not some hivemind.

Capitalism doesn't promote materialism for fuck sake. It is just about being able to spend what you want where you want to. Holy fuck it isn't complicated. Capitalism isn't a fucking philosophy or theology it is only a basic set of principles for how people should be able to transact with one another.

The most important issues are white replacement and Jewish control. Both capitalism and communism have contributed to these problems. Blaming capitalism for white genocide is attacking a means of spreading the virus, not the virus itself

Attached: 1536960991055.jpg (555x555, 95K)

Anyone who "Denounces" capitalism has no knowledge of economics whatsoever

Attached: x12.gif (320x320, 24K)

How are you defining free market?

Fascism isn't bureaucratic, it's probably the opposite. It places more power in the individual leaders, and let's them guide society as human beings, rather than being beholden to a ton of legal restrictions.

Mussolini brought religion back to the forefront of Italian society. I agree that Hitler should have been better to the church.

You can not be a slave when the exchange is voluntary. Comparing communism which includes forced labour to free market capitalism makes no sense

What about ships?

This

By a pure definition of free market, meaning no restrictions imposed by any entity in the production, transfer and buying of goods. Any other definition is not an actual free market, but simply a propaganda term to sell it as such.

The individual leaders need many other people under them to actually do stuff, and those other people may not totally agree with the leader or are not as competant as them. The buearocracy is still there

I'm not so much advocating for a kind of bureaucratic set of restrictions, but power being placed in the hands of aristocrats to decide the direction of the state in a more human way, absolutism. Voluntary exchange should exist, but industries that cause harm to the people should be curtailed.

America forces prisoners to do work, this isn’t forced labor? But I accept your overall point, capitalism treats its people as serfs rather than the slaves of communism.

With that kind of liberty comes the philosophy as the economy develops, the more you're able to buy the more people will begin to value material goods as the only way to measure a persons worth, the more people can do with money or with supplies that make money, the more powerful people with supplies and/or money become

>Capitalism doesn't promote materialism
>It is just about being able to spend what you want where you want to.
Are you retarded?

Sure but your going to find similar chains of command in any system. Coorporations will still have this. Fascism avoids the kind of autonomous bureaucracy that results from a heavy set of legal codes and regulations.

How does a capitalist society measure success? By access to materials. It is inherently materialistic.

I'm actually not sure if ships count as capital since they aren't involved in production, but land was still by far the most important factor in wealth, and this was dolled out by aristocratic title.

The ability to control and purge the bureaucracy is much greater than under other systems though. Those who disagree with the leader are removed permanently and less competent individuals are either rigorously brought up to speed or moved to less demanding/important positions.

What do you mean "imposed" by an entity? Who is the entity?
Which industries are harmful and how can you assure that the powerful won't just restrict that which they dislike?

No. Society has a contract called laws. When you break laws you are susceptible to the consequences outlined in that contract. Breaking the law is voluntary and therefore the consequences were acknowled and chosen. Besides, prisoners are paid for their labor even if the wages are ridiculously small

>Everyone has a right to promote every ideology they choose, again nobody is stopping you from promoting spiritualism, nobody forces you to buy ANYTHING
no one is forcing women to fuck niggers
yet interracial marriages are still rising

I can't prove it, i just think it's axiomatic. We evolved in groups, and I think our place in society is important for anyone. Capitalism has done a good job of trying to atomizing people against their biology however.

Hitler on Parliaments

Attached: IMG_20180909_114846.jpg (800x923, 344K)

So what rules do they operate by other than legal rules and such?

Attached: IMG_20180909_115056.jpg (800x836, 300K)

Or perhaps people aren't so much worried about their "place in society" whatever that means, and are actually concerned with much more real problems, like making ends meet, finding a career that they don't hate, starting and supporting a family, etc.

Any entity not involved in the process. So, say I am a farmer who grows and sells corn, you are the grocer who buys and sells it and a third person is the consumer. In a truly free market, the transaction between each party would be unimpeded by any other party.

The law isn’t voluntary at all. You are born into the rules of society and you have no choice in what those rules are. And paying 10 cents for labor is literally just paying something so you can make the claim that it isn’t slavery.

>Have any proof to back up that claim?
what do you mean
your entire culture is based off of materialism

Yes. What's the issue with that? Nobody forces anyone else to do anything.