/ NatSoc V. Fascism V. Natcap thread \
In the previous threads we focused on just NatCap versus Natsoc, but here let's expand the scope with traditional Fascism as well...
What form of governance is the best? NatSoc, Fascism, or NatCap? (in progression from most collectivist to most Individualist).
Previous threads:
national capitalism. fascism is what arises when proper NatCap policies were not put in place previously.
Natsoc for every european nation and commonwealth nations, Natcap for America.
strictly due to demographic reasons
Nationalism and free market capitalism are opposing ideologies
yeah makes sense actually, but n a perfectly homogenous state, which would be most efficient?
You rang?
Fascism is a political governance theory like any other, with similarities in terms of authorianism to Natsoc, Communism, Natcap, ect.
Anarcho Capitalism is a literal disease
NatKap for the United States. How this could apply is to trust bust big businesses. What would be a good idea(in my mind) is to have an economic system that is firstly back by Silver and then by the workers in that what work needs to be done will back the dollar but having a silver standard is there as a means to back that up as well.
Wow you've made such a wonderful argument
>checks flag
Every .....time
NatCap is the only one I would actively advocate for, I think socialism has a way of breeding more socialism until a society rots away, I've seen it in my own country. The US is significantly more socialist now than it used to be when I was a kid, and before I was born it was even less socialist, so on and so forth until back when the country actually resembled it's founding principles. Socialism takes an enormous effort even to hold in check and has a way of encouraging the growth of a class of people who's preferred survival strategy is to sponge off of socialism at the rest of society's expense. An advocate of socialism might say "well we can install checks in the system to ensure parasitism is kept as low as it possibly can be, as long as the social workers are kept on a tight leash this can't happen" but you fine fellows forget that social workers and their overseers are both part of a government and governments always have some level of corruption, and corruption breeds more corruption which means that since social welfare is an easy way to convince people to give away their political allegiances those workers and their overseers and the politicians who set their policy will inevitably grow slightly corrupt, and then over time more and more corrupt, and they'll want more socialism so they can buy more influence with society and create more socialistic welfare parasites who they can count on for support. I'd go on but this novel is probably already near the character limit.
the flag represent diversity, a separate place for every race. have a problem with that kike?
>fascism is what arises when proper NatCap policies were not put in place previously.
kill yourself, dumbfuck
NatSoc=German fascism you uneducated goober.
National socialism is the belief in a nationalistic and homogenous state that provides a sense not of actual socialism (marxism) but a sense of communal purpose, in which each citizen in granted individually the capital in which they have truly earned, whist preventing the capitalist, globalist elite from taking over. Nationalism its all about love, love for one`s own country, love for nature, the purity of nature. Love for clean healthy and decent habits and traditions. Natsoc actually helps you to understand why our country is so degenerate and how capitalism has played and continues to be a key role. It helps you realize that corporations that are in a country shouldn't drain all the capital and should play a role in supporting the people that make them all the money, instead of outsourcing their jobs or embracing illegal immigrants to take the jobs, or raping them in taxes to cover expenses they could easily afford. Its teaches that encouraging people in the country to work together for the goal of improving the country not only works, but also tightens the bonds of the family unit. Also, contrary to popular belief, a small government with comprehensive legal outreach and fundamentalist values does not have to be specifically authoritarian by design, but if that is what is necessary to prevent degeneracy then so be it.
Your pilpul has no power here rabbi
>pilpul
what on earth is that?
>pic
democracy and libertarianism are actually aids, Statism is the only way
I have over the years come to be a Clerical Fascist and believe that it is the best government form. The Falange under Rivera is also a worthy contender.
Capitalism is inherently globalist, national capitalism is just a cope to avoid being called a Nazi by people are going to call you a Nazi anyhow.
I've seen this description of NatSoc but I don't think I've ever seen an example of a country which actually practices it, or one even sorta close to it, and certainly not a country which competes peaceably with other nations in a stable manner. I'll break my objections or thoughts down bellow.
>NatSoc provides communal purpose not marxist socialism.
Perhaps it would be more clear then if you called it something besides National Socialism, socialism has a connotation with the vast majority of people that will lead them to confusion, or to think you're being dishonest about definitions even if you aren't. I also value communal purpose, it's why I'm a Nationalist, I love my nation, my people, and the unique (and objectively pretty successful) set of ideals and values which they hold.
>Capitalist Globalist Elite
I don't think they're fundamentally capitalists, they're happy to use some of the capitalist tools like currency and private enterprise when it suits them, but they're equally happy to advocate for central planning, nationalization, and socialism as well. They don't fundamentally believe in or care for market competition, freedom of association, or objective value, I don't think it would actually be fair to characterize them as capitalists.
>Capitalism plays a key role in societal degeneration.
I disagree, I don't think the US has been fundamentally capitalist for decades, and I think the discarding of capitalism in favor of (((mixed markets))), the expansion of taxation, regulation, price and wage fixing and globalism correlates directly with the sharp decline in fundamentally American values in our society.
I'll make another post with one final disagreement but this one is reaching the character limit, happy to engage with you on this user.
A certain central European state in the 1930s had great ideas, but there were major economic issues, like people buying whole trucks just to get tires because of the limitations by the government on manufacturing tires alone. National socialism is great for a number of reasons, but heres why NatKap is a more modern and realistic alternative:
Capitalism is the best economic system, but not the best societal system. Unfortunately, any state that wants to stay strong against foreign influence must be economically strong to have the tools to do so. Thus, Capitalism must be subservient to nationalism, but rejecting it's uses entirely is foolish. China's weird fusion if state capitalism and quasi-fascism has a lot of good ideas to take from. Of course, it's communistic legacy resulted in poor property rights that created a culture that destroyed it's ecology. Through this method, Capitalism is not specifically anti-nation or globalist by nature. An isolationist, Traditionalist nation that values the community equally as the individual could benefit from a regulated, internalized, capitalist economy, perhaps even better than Hitler's semi-free market, semi-state run economic model.
The final issue I have is with the concept of "comprehensive legal outreach" partly because I'd like you to better define it but also because in general giving government powers outside of those most basic to it's functions seems to inevitably result in the expansion of government into an authoritarian state which can usually only be reversed by violent revolution. A government given the power to stamp out degeneracy may seem lovely at first, but what if twenty years down the line they decide some previously acceptable behavior is degenerate, and anybody who objects is degenerate, and any of their associates are degenerate, and they clamp down on "degeneracy" after "degeneracy" until a few generations down the line they're saying that disagreeing with their policy is degenerate and voicing concern about them is degenerate, disobeying their ever increasing body of busybody laws is degenerate.
This is somewhat like what's going on in European countries except instead of degenerate they say "far-right", and are working actively to crush their political opposition simply by labeling it far right, then saying far right things need to be eradicated through legalistic means, and slowly granting themselves the power and authority to do so. I'm concerned this is what your peaceful and (originally) small but empowered NatSoc government could turn into given a hundred years. I won't claim NatCap is perfect or that it couldn't also fail in numerous different ways, but I think it would be the least likely or at least slowest to become corrupted if implemented correctly.
>never seen an example of a country which actually practices it
The Nazis did, and it worked amazingly for a decade
>Perhaps it would be more clear then if you called it something besides National Socialism
the belief is the belief, regardless of its name. NatCap is the individualist alternate.
>I don't think they're fundamentally capitalists
democratic political institutions serve the highest bidders. the highest bidders are the Capitalist elites. Open your eyes.
>I disagree
Capitalism as it currently stands has led to the profitability of degeneracy (porn, drugs, abortion etc.)
National socialism is great for a number of reasons, but heres why NatKap could be seen as a more modern and realistic alternative:
The problem with America is that its Libertarian by design. That's the problem. America is not isolationist, traditionalist, and does not value the community or wellbeing of the nation specifically. Libertarianism leads to societal decay, which is why a degree Authoritarianism is NECESSARY to preserve a nation. Thats the “National” part of NatKap
Capitalism is the best economic system, but not the best societal system. Unfortunately, any state that wants to stay strong against foreign influence must be economically strong to have the tools to do so. Thus, Capitalism must be subservient to nationalism, but rejecting it's uses entirely is foolish. China's weird fusion if state capitalism and quasi-fascism has a lot of good ideas to take from. Of course, it's communistic legacy resulted in poor property rights that created a culture that destroyed it's ecology. Through this method, Capitalism is not specifically anti-nation or globalist by nature. An isolationist, Traditionalist nation that values the community equally as the individual could benefit from a regulated, internalized, capitalist economy, perhaps even better than Hitler's semi-free market, semi-state run economic model. This is the “Kap” part of NatKap, abbreviation for “Kapitalismus”
(capitalism in german)
I see the issues you bring up pertaining to an authoritarian government, but let me dissuade those worries. If a nation is founded on ilaniable, unchangeable fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and the right to remain armed, whilst also clamping strongly down on things that are not fundamentally protected (abortion, homosexualy, pornography) then what's the issue? If you clearly define what the government can and can't do, with reasonable restrictions in place and a limited sense of democracy, then who cares if its Authoritarian? If it is working to preserve society, then surely it is worth sacrificing "muh rights".
>Nazis did for a decade
Yes, while making some ethical choices I think would fundamentally destroy those things I think make society worth having in the first place, I don't think the destruction of "degenerate" literature, state sponsored propaganda and censorship for example can be condoned, period, I think it fundamentally is the way in which a society throws up it's hands and indicates that it can't actually stand on it's own ideological potency, if controversial ideas have to be destroyed and suppressed instead of refuted.
>Belief is belief regardless of name.
I know that but not everybody does, I criticize only because I think being a NatSoc but without the socialism is going to confuse other people you may want to discuss this with who oppose socialism, they may write you off right at the title because of it.
>Capitalist Elites
I reiterate, I don't think they fundamentally operate by capitalist principles, they're ideological mercenaries who will do anything in pursuit of their delusional vision of globalist utopia, their capitalist only when they need a successful ideology that generates value, their socialist when they need sympathy from the masses, their authoritarian when someone disagrees with them, etc.
>Capitalism has made degeneracies profitable.
Again I disagree, those things have always been profitable, sex, chemical escapism, and murder of all kinds have always had a value and people have paid or bartered or made deals to have them done since before the idea of capitalism even existed. I think your vision is skewed because the internet, a capitalist creation, has made it easier to see these degenerate acts all around us. Never forget that abortion was created by socialistic left wing central planners when they realized that it would be unpopular for them to overtly slaughter entire populations or force them at gunpoint to be castrated.
>what on earth is that
I told you nice it's not effective here
We are replacing you and not the other way around. We're going to eradicate your tribe from the earth forever
im not a jew but ok
At least at first your ideals already mirror my own, I've discussed several times the idea of "ironclad" constitutional stipulations, those being well thought out components of a constitution which do not leave room for interpretation at all and cannot legally be altered, repealed, or circumvented. The problem comes when you posit a government with sufficient monopoly on force and legality to be authoritarian, the best safeguards imagined can eventually be circumvented through corruption, the people can be cowed and pacified with state propaganda and eventually even the soundest government can become corrupt, and abuse of the citizens and the destruction of those founding principles becomes inevitable, authoritarian governments can speed towards this goal like no other system can because they already have so much power to spare, they don't need 150+ years like the US government did. Our system I think was incredibly sound, very well thought out, I think the founders were some of the brightest statesmen to walk this Earth and still haven't been matched and yet even though their government was minimal and had much less power than what you describe, here we are wallowing in soft tyranny, degeneracy, socialism and central planning, infanticide is legal and they're working on criminalizing dissent and free thought and disarmament now.
As to sacrificing "rights" I'd clarify that I don't believe in positive rights that you're owed for existing, I believe in negative rights (things you prevent other people from doing to you by implication of force and explicit social contract), to me a society is only valuable insofar as it can facilitate the creation and protection of negative rights and the general maintenance of productive human liberty.
What about a currency backed by precious materials like gold, silver, diamonds, platinum, minerals used for/in electronics etc....
Their value fluctuates based on their availability though and they can be hoarded away to monopolize currency. I admit I don't know any perfect solution but it might be worth it for money to be based instead on energy, which is a more objective function of what something is "worth". Some kind of Kilowatt-dollar if you will, since energy is already a currency which we all literally use to do every single thing from thinking to walking to building infrastructure.
>I don't think the destruction of "degenerate" literature, state sponsored propaganda and censorship for example can be condoned, period, I think it fundamentally is the way in which a society throws up it's hands and indicates that it can't actually stand on it's own ideological potency, if controversial ideas have to be destroyed and suppressed instead of refuted.
I agree, Nazism isn't perfect
>I reiterate, I don't think they fundamentally operate by capitalist principles, they're ideological mercenaries who will do anything in pursuit of their delusional vision of globalist utopia, their capitalist only when they need a successful ideology that generates value, their socialist when they need sympathy from the masses, their authoritarian when someone disagrees with them, etc.
my point is that capitalist elitism is always a threat to legitimate governance and basic liberty
>those things have always been profitable
under hitler they weren't, under mussolini they weren't. Rule of law will apply when enforced. Do not hesitate.
>The problem comes when you posit a government with sufficient monopoly on force and legality to be authoritarian, the best safeguards imagined can eventually be circumvented through corruption
>Our system I think was incredibly sound, very well thought out
I agree, the problem is the inherent libertarian principles of the nation, and the lack of foresight pertaining to corporatism and media.
>here we are wallowing in soft tyranny, degeneracy, socialism and central planning, infanticide is legal and they're working on criminalizing dissent and free thought and disarmament now.
Why do you think this has happened? IN a right wing fascist republic, based off of inalienable fundamentalist rights, that would not have happened. It would've been clamped down on and destroyed.
Is China NatCap?
That's an interesting idea, I'd like to see some economists discuss the practicality of something like this.
the hoppe meme is so forced and unfunny
>the people can be cowed and pacified with state propaganda and eventually even the soundest government can become corrupt
>can become corrupt
any government can become corrupt, and I believe there are ways of preventing this whilst maintaining na statist state that prevent societal decay.
>The problem comes when you posit a government with sufficient monopoly on force and legality to be authoritarian
You forget that in a fascistic republic (similar to ancient Rome), along with an armed populace, this should not be an issue to nearly the same degree as extreme authoritarianism.
>the best safeguards imagined can eventually be circumvented through corruption
Exactly, it is inevitable. And we are seeing it to a degree now
they are complicated
It seems to me that any form of elitism inevitably becomes a threat to liberty because the entire concept of an elite forms divisions between citizens where the class of "elite" become convinced it is either not immoral or actually a moral imperative to abuse their peers. That's not to say I fundamentally oppose some forms of social stratification, I think meritocracy is an absolute must for a civilized society but the divide between elite and plebian almost inevitably ends up being completely arbitrary and just an excuse by one group to be given legal authority to stab the other in the back. As to the law under Hitler or Mussolini, I don't think you need a fascistic government with such wide reaching authoritarian power to simply enforce laws, what you do need is a legal system that isn't a complete and absolute muddy clusterfuck, there must be a clear set of abuses you cannot commit and a clear set of punishments and modes of social rehabilitation for those who do abuse their fellows, and those punishments must be carried out publicly and promptly. I don't think you actually necessitate a fascistic framework to accomplish that though, especially since it can be so easily abused if just a couple integral people in that framework let the power start going to their heads, which is also an inevitability of having a society populated by human beings. I think the libertarian principle of America is the only thing that makes it worth living in, if our country didn't at least try to preserve human liberty it would already be at least as much of a shithole as the EU if not far worse. I think that power to "clamp down on and destroy" things will very rapidly corrupt your well intentioned government officials, they'll start to get off on it and soon they'll be clamping down on and destroying anyone and anything that looks at them sideways.
>came here to display butthurt
>displays it proudly
Friendly reminder
>(You)
Are here forever
National capitalism, if you get sick you don't have the state to fall back on, if you didn't save for retirement you don't have the state to rely on, if you need housing you don't have the state to rely on. Have kids, raise them well, and be involved with your community, if nobody helps you in your times of need the world is probably better off without you anyway.
You don’t understand, the nature of Capitalism aligns the interests of the elites towards globalism. There is no getting around that.
Markets must submit to the state, or else globalism and deracination is the result.
You don't understand
Natural capital (not money but commodities selected by the natural market) should be controlled by its owners who have rightfully acquired it. Faggoty bootlickers think that capital should be in the hands of
1) das furer
2) his royal highness
3) dear leader
4) the noble committee
And all of these organs guarantee that the capital will be used less efficiently since they have to be paid for their time as well. Also it's opens the opportunity for favor systems to emerge. Socialists think that they will have a capital free system are dillusional. You need to either go back where you came, lurk more, or go the fuck away