Corporate imperialism in our own homelands is the real enemy

all your biggest enemies are capitalists. If you don´t see that you are blind. most of them are jews too.

I don't know if they've realized the exact purpose behind the pro-multiculti thing pushed by the corporations but in case they have, the more people spread the truth, the better. So if I'm just one among thousands that's ok. At least I'm still among the few who are right.

Whoa shouldn't u be anti socialist or am I the one you think is a brainlet?

I have to admit I don't know what Gadsden flaggers really stand for. Aren't those the tea partyers? Aren't they pro-capitalist or are they just pro-white (and because of that anti U.S. gov) and pro-gun?

>Communists are capitalists

Attached: 1540848588580.png (890x646, 772K)

Maybe..

But while all communists are socialists, not all socialists are communists or anti-nationalists or anti-racialists.

Nationalist socialism died with the Soviet Union. Only Trotskyism and Fabianism have any relevance in the modern world.

democracy pretty much died in russia too
all they know is corruption

Well don't really have much of a choice Jow Forums should advocate for and push agitprop for the cause of ethnonationalism and racialism, noit just because those values in and of themselves are what we value but because white societies are needed for socialism to work, and socialism is needed to destroy the corporate imperialist class that is destroying us and about to rule the world.

History is full of heroes who defeated tyrants, only to become tyrants themselves. Socialism is a quixotic attempt to make real the impossible concept of equality, and therefore will invariably lead to tyranny. It is no solution.

ethnonationalism, racialism and democratic socialism or market socialism*

Yup they need new consumers, because Europeans stopped replacing themselves.
Someone has to keep real estate prices up, stocks high, social security funded,and wages hovering slightly above subsistence.

Let's just remind people of the definition of socialism.

>Socialism means that the means of production are in the hands of the working class (common average people, or in other words... us)

For example you could have a system where the workers own 51% of each company and elect someone to run the company. Then the extra 49%, which has no say directly on how the company is run, since it doesn't own the company (no majority or even half-ownership), can provide investments that can run further innovation.

So what if a common average person wants to save up some money and use it to start his own business where he's the one in charge?

Marxism-Leninism is just a branch of liberalism, which was itself a centralizing movement designed to remove power from kings and grant them to the bourgeoisie. Same with libertarianism. The error here is thinking that corporations exist prior to the state, when they are in fact state delegates and cannot exist without state sanction. All this "rule of law" "safeguard against tyranny" "separation of powers" crap is just an excuse to prevent harmful liberal actors (liberals, marxists, libertarians, etc.) from being punished for destroying society.

>If you're so nationalist, while at the same time being capitalist

You can't be a Nationalist and Capitalist at the same time, you can't put your people and country first while also putting personal profits first. Most of the time they are mutually exclusive.

Now I assume based on the rest of your post that you already know this, but what perhaps you don't understand is that most of this board is already anti-capitalist.

Yes it does. You cannot reconcile the two. Capitalism is the pursuit of profit as the primary (or as it turns out sole) concern of private economic exchanges. How can you put making profits first and put your people and their country first? It doesn't make any sense.

Good question. Probably depends on the system and the amount of people, if any that he employs. I'm no know-it-all, I'm just saying that people especially here on Jow Forums should look into socialism if they're serious about changing the actual power dynamics.

For example in Yugopslavia under Tito things seemed to work pretty well.

inb4:
>They ended up having severe economic issues
So does Greece, and it's a capitalist country. Not to mention that it was a multicultural civic-cuck state made up of ethnicities that were hostile towards each other, which probably also was a reason for many problems, perhaps even economic ones.

I dunno man, in the absence of a state, a corporation, with its wealthy owners would just turn into a new royalty.
Also I get that many people are not serious about various things here, it is Jow Forums after all, but let's not forget we're not some fucking royalty ourselves, we're just common people. Let's not have any power fantasies about all this, which is a term often used on Ylilauta.

I don't think there's anything wrong with royalty per se. I'd take my chances with a mediocre king over the US donor class. Even the American Revolution started out as a reaction to Parliament.

exactly. Every time you drive by a mcdonalds, a starbucks, dunken donuts or wendys.

It is all cancer and it needs to be eradicated. These are companies that

1) have no allegiance and preference to the country they reside in. They rip away the culture and identity of a nation.

2) They make people sick.

Yea messed up there with my wording. Should've said something like:

>If you're so nationalist, while at the same time being capitalist, you shouldn't whine about Google or Facebook running your country
or
>If you're so nationalist, yet you're whining about Google or Facebook running your country, you're not capitalist

Oh shut the fuck up.

Attached: commiecapitalist.png (612x612, 275K)

Yea perhaps a better way to put is they would turn into nobility........

No actually, that isn't the problem.
The problem is that they would own everything and you would live on the land you were born on on rent.
They would own the soil, the water, the farm animals, the military, a peasant terrorizing robot death squad and probably the human genome.
So you are at their mercy.

It's about power and ownership.

I mean, you already pay property taxes and 50% federal + state tax here to subsidize liberal elites' slave labor/voters/pressure groups. Are they going to tax me over 50%? Why do we just assume the King would terrorize the population when liberals are ACTUALLY terrorizing them by bringing in the dregs of the third world?

Capitalism = power and wealth in the hands of the few.
Socialism = power and wealth in the hands of a few.
2 sides of the same coin. Only idiots argue about which side of the shit-sandwich they are on.

Power is always held by an elite. it's just a matter of whether their rule is going to be good or bad.

Because money is power, and the corporations (or whatever they would end uo turning into) and their capitalist shareholders have the money, and these corporations push for this shit in the first place?

Corporations have power BECAUSE we have a democratic system with divided power.

Capitalism is a enemy of Nationalism my friend.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

TIL: Share holders interest must come before the community thus why the biggest fuel of the Nationalist movement is the working class.

So you having a voice in elections and in the management of the economy and behavior of the corporations is as much influence as having a voice in elections? 1+1=1?

If you mean that if the power was not divided that power would be solely in the hands of the state, I don't disagree with that.

However in case the corporations end up turning the first world countries into banana republics, where the people are stupid selfish and lazy (the New Europeans, the New Americans and so on), the corporations, and whatever future forms they possibly end up taking such as private individuals and families (new royalties, nobilities dynasties), will rule the world.

All I'm saying is, and all this comes down to, is that it's about the concentration of power. Whether it is in the hands of corporations and/or states or also in the hands of the people.

Bear in mind a large portion of Jow Forums is now composed of the t_d children that worship a narcissistic billionaire and boomers that worship nothing but the numbers in their bank accounts. Corporate greed is the single greatest destructive force against culture and happiness that mankind has ever created, but it is much easier to blame poor people or brown people or feminists because they're all much louder and more obvious and because you can pretend you're coming at them from a point where you're above them.

And just to continue from that a little...These corporations would in this case basically turn into states anyways, just private ones, where the new royalty owns everything and the common people own nothing.And to continue from one of my previous posts...
I don't knoiw if a communist society is possible.
> Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society
>Basically an upgrade on top of socialism see:

I guess there's been plenty of moneyless societies but usually they just barter or give out land as payment instead. They always use trade something with value anyways, and since money is just a means of excange, I don't see how getting rid of it by itself is a good idea. Unless... it reduces conflict (it will never eliminate war and conflict, even if marxist materialist people believe resources are the only things people fight over but...) in a post-scarcity society (which communists believe they can reach.)

When it comes to class, the Marxist definition breaks the classes in a capitalist society into the workers (which basically includes entrepreneurs as petty-bourgeoisie, who also...) have to work for a living whether as manual labor or even running a firm and the capitalist class (the owners.) This is definitely one thing Marx was right on the money about instead of the pointless income level "class" that capitalists talk about.

Finally, when it comes to the state, even if communists believe that ancient tribal societies were stateless, I wouldn't agree. Even if there was no written law, or bureaucracy, there is no guarantee that the tribal leader enjoyed democratic support and could have been a tyrant, who if he was more clever had small cadre of loyal bodyguards. Because as far as I understand it communists and anarchocommunists both believe hierarchy and rule can only be legitimate if it enjoys democratic support.
So basically both ancoms and Marxist-Leninists both strive for a society where:

>leftwing retard disingenuously tries to advocate his retarded ideology because it doesn’t work when he’s honest

T. Lefty cuck

...cont.

where:
>Only working class people exist (socialism)
>The society is a direct democracy (democracy in the Greek fashion not a republic)
>Post-scarcity & moneyless society

The difference being only that An-coms want to try to jump straight ahead into communism, while Marxist-Leninists believe they have to first achieve socialism.

Most of the people are fucking retarded, your ideology is nonsense.

What's your problem comr.. friend?

Trump has definitely done some things right so he's definitely a step in the right... 90 degrees direction.