There are no books refuting the fact that capitalism can be worse than communism

He’d be giving guns to the homeless

The idea of racial differences is a spook, but do you believe sex is a spook?
Why are fascists so spooked user? Hu?

I still don’t understand why those things are bad?

Oh yeah the homeless are well known for being anti racist and sexist

damn... deep

>The idea of racial differences is a spook
Sounds like you're the one who's spooked

Yeah, Egoism is all about helping other people and fighting bigotry. GTFO

who's on first?

If this picture is supposed to be a wow just wow about muh ebil nazis, just remember that Karl Marx explicitly said that human rights were "bourgeois concepts" and rejected them completely. Very amusing to see modern "Communists" applying liberal concepts to Marxism, although it is also sad to see the degeneration of such a great tradition.

Difference versus equity is itself an arbitrary distinction. You are using "spook" as a rediculous buzzword as a cope for the fact that you have been thoughroughly BTFO on race differences before.

Are you seriously trying to say that Stirner would give a shit about your gay moral-words? Pure cringe. Just stop posting you are embarassing yourself.

How is racism bad? How is whites keeping out non whites bad for whites? It's not, it's good for them

Not letting women vote is good for a society as a whole. Feminism has destroyed families and led to things like encouraging single moms with benefits, and giving women all the power in family courts

What's bad about nationalism? Caring about your people and your country and wanting to protect it. Seems like the foundation of a country

>What's bad about nationalism? ...
Because it's inherently superficial? You can't care about your fellow countrymen, and if you say that you do then you're deluding yourself.
Only your social circle is important to you in any meaningful way.

>How is whites keeping out non whites bad for whites? It's not, it's good for them
But bad for everyone else, especially people who would want to travel the world and experience different cultures, or even are seeking refuge in the next closest country (which is not a crime).
>Not letting women vote is good for a society as a whole. Feminism has destroyed families and led to things like encouraging single moms with benefits, and giving women all the power in family courts
Not everyone has the time to have a job and manage a family simultaneously. If a single mother needs to dedicate all of her time into supporting children, how will she make money to survive without benefits? This also doubles as proof of the inhumanity of capitalism.
And if the woman in the relationship is determined to objectively be in the right, that's a *you* problem rather than a systemic problem.
>What's bad about nationalism? Caring about your people and your country and wanting to protect it. Seems like the foundation of a country
Becoming attatched to a country and its culture is toxic. Everyone should just be able to leave their country for a better one if they don't like the way things are run there, but toxic nationalism prevents this. As a free thinking and behaving individual you have no reason to be chained to the country you live in.

It's possible but not generally true. Most Communist states became state capitalist (China) or became basket cases (Latin America)

>what's good for foreigners is more important, don't have an in-group goyim
>think of the single mothers
>you should be able to leave your country for a better one, even if the trend eventually destroys the better one and threatens actual genetic diversity

Whew... Naive to the max.

Lenin's Imperialism the final stage of Capitalism.

BTW, free market societies (the Marxist call these capitalist societies) have demonstrably proved more effective at wealth creation, and improving standards of living to any country that adopts it. Even by UN standards. It is worth looking up.

>Superficial
Maybe for you. Some of us like looking out for those like us. This is best understood when you're in another country and you meet other countrymen from your own there, creating an invisible bond of brotherhood between similar races.
The Chinese know this.
Jews know this.
And I bet the Indians know this, too.

Sameguy here, as a Flip, I know this to be true between pinoys in New Zealand.

>>what's good for foreigners is more important, don't have an in-group goyim
Unironically. Supporting the under-privileged should always be top priority
>>think of the single mothers
Unironically
>>you should be able to leave your country for a better one, even if the trend eventually destroys the better one and threatens actual genetic diversity
There is too much space in the world for major nations to be destroyed by migration, and mass race mixing is maximum diversity.

>racial differences
>biological facts
>spooks
>when spooks are literally about the fallacy of objective morality
>biological facts have anything to do with morality
b-but I thought the left were pro science? just a clump of cells! transexuality and homosexuality is normal, muh chimps!

Attached: he.png (541x530, 385K)

Not him, but...
>Mass race mixing
>it ends with everyone either super white or super brown
>maximum diversity

No it's not "only for me" you dumb monkey, human brain can't comprehend empathy for people that are not relevant to you. Do you care about a hooker that got raped and killed in the next town? Or a hobo that's probably dying of heatstroke in some gutter right now? Of course not. It's even worse when we approach bigger numbers of casualties. Oh *insert event* killed 100-1000? Poor them! Thoughts and prayers.
Don't fall into the virtue signalling of "nationalism", it only makes you look pathetic.
>Maybe for you. Some of us like looking out for those like us. This is best understood when you're in another country and you meet other countrymen from your own there, creating an invisible bond of brotherhood between similar races.
I hate my countrymen when I recognize them in other countries, they're often uncivilized and vulgar. I don't like being associated with them. This mystical bond is romanticized to the extreme by /pol larpers.
Fuck off cunt

Embarrassing desu

It's what was meant to happen from the start.
There would definitely be variations between families as well. And that's only cosmetics, not even counting genetics.

Also not him again, but..
>focusing on foreigners
>wanting to prioritize the underprivileged.
Then start with your own, friend. The people on your streets. Why are you bringing beggars into your house when you can't feed your own children? It's like you want to sink the whole nation into unnecessary poverty.
Local people first, foreigners last.

>Capitalism
A few live exceptionally well, most live moderately well, some barely survive, some die.

>Communism
A few live exceptionally well, some are killed by the state, the rest barely survive.

If you define moderately as paycheck paycheck, then sure

Latin American socialist states failed because of US intervention
>Vuvuzela
Capitalism also took them down, their entire economy was built on the back of oil and when the price crashed so did their economy

>All these psychopathic opinions
Get your head checked, friend. You make too many assumptions for me. I can feel empathy for other people thank you very much, even when they have nothing to do with me. Already you're proved wrong.
>I hate my countrymen when I recognize them in other countries, they're often uncivilized and vulgar. I don't like being associated with them. This mystical bond is romanticized to the extreme by /pol larpers.
Your problem. My country is full of problems but I still love my people. As soon as I hear the accent I can tell they're one of mine.

>It's what was meant to happen from the start.
So you have no real solution then?

>Fascism is when you have state Capitalism and are racist
You're so fucking wrong

>daily life is psychopathic
Delude yourself if it makes you feel better, user, but that doesn't mean that your "feeling" for them isn't superficial. Google Dunbar's Number and Paul Slovic's works if you're interested. Truth is grim I'm afraid.

>Spouting "Deluded" till it makes sense to your viewpoint.
I'm sorry, friend, but I'm afraid my sypathies for others isn't superficial. Maybe it's you who has the problem. Probably is. Don't bother replying back.

>generally people en masse don't care about above named occurrences
>ah-ha! but you see I'm different
sure, cope

Latinocommunism generally failed whether or not the US intervened, and states that avoided Latinocommunism were generally better off in the long run, see Chile, Panama, Colombia to an extent. To be fair, they aren't really all that "Communist" by Orothodox Marxist standards but there's definitely an identifiable Latino mode of government that both draws on Marxism and has rather poor results.

People rely on each other on a societal level for everything from food to washing pavements. You are so delusional if you think your bugban friends are the only meaningful group of people in your life.

The theory was that people don't care. One guy (me) does.
So yes that's his whole theory down the toilet.
I repeat, please stop replying back.

>inb4 "generally"
Wasn't stated before. Read the comments if you have to.

It's not a problem in the first place.
You can do both.

Both capitalism and communism suck. Third way for me!

Attached: thethirdway2.png (518x1274, 754K)

Nationalism is only bad to those who want to destroy my nation. My nation promotes my interests and protects me from other nations whose interests conflict with those of my own, which includes possesion of increasingly limited resources. We live in a world of nation-states. We do not live in an episode of Star Trek™ where everyone will hold hands and sing kumbayaa when borders are eliminated. Although that would be nice we are very far from such a thing, and the course that the Globalists are trying to steer leads not to that but rather to increasing totalitarianism, where unelected bureaucrats and corporate boards living hundreds of miles away will order you around in despite of your own wishes, opinions or lifestyle.
If you live in this nation and oppose it, then your ideology has been supplied to you by another nation that wants to destroy this one.

You are the deluded one, comrade...

Race is very real.

Attached: 1556978114533.png (703x483, 12K)

The burden of proof that free markets kill more than communism and its twin brother fascism is definitely on you. Picking an ideology that is grounded against reality will lead to some painful places. Good luck.

Nations are odious, but necessary. Hell, LIFE is odious! Eating is odious, killing plants and animals to survive, and keeping your family safe is odious too, since resources are limited and making sure your kids survive mean someone else's might not. This is true of humans or any other animal. Why do people stop thinking scientifically the moment humans are involved, as if suddenly the laws of evolution no longer apply to featherless bipeds?

Have you even read Darwin?

Operation Condor is well know in Latam.

>Fascism
>Racist
nigga wut?

THIS
/thread

>If you live in this nation and oppose it, then your ideology has been supplied to you by another nation that wants to destroy this one.
Or you can, you know, think for yourself.

Of course! But the establishment discourages that because it can often lead to going against the mainstream paradigm that we should destroy our own nation, shit in our own nest...
Cui bono?

Straw
It’s not directly about this, no. But you’re implying only whites can be egoists?
You’re so stridently racist you don’t even know you’re the spooked one here. People look different. Get over it.
>thoroughly BTFO
HAHA when? What was the context of this? Maybe it was an imposter, I donno.
What “moral words” are you referring to?
S P O O K E D.
You’re all so very confused. What is that picture even?

>whether or not
It did. The US is a commercial empire that seeks and destroys and/or captures its prey in order to feather the oligarchs nests. Yes, “market socialism” also fails, it always eventually tips in favor of the capitalist class. Is this all any reason to be such a bootlicker?
Any “race” can be in this capitalist in-group, you realize? This is one of the reasons some of you bootlickers are racist-nationalists
>See Chile
They’re not better off. The media shows you the well off and the local oligarchs don’t sabotage the economy, ya dolt

>muh nation
There’s no such thing

We are all humans

You have no clue what these words mean, much less the recent history of these subjects. Stop typing about it till you find out.

Life isn’t odious. Nations make them into pitiable things though
Are you a cannibal or something?

Fascism is to liberal capitalism as jihadism is to Islam

>think about the brown foreigners not yourself or your people
kill yourself

>Becoming attatched to a country and its culture is toxic
you are actually retarded

I like my fellow white people much more than other people and want to live in a country of them
I want to protect that

Those are some scary ideas there. Calm down fella.
Culture is a perceived aggregate of shared experiences of a given locality and lifetime. Usually ones youth shines brightest in one’s memory, sometimes its the half truths told about one’s national or racial founding mythology. Boomers go on about the 60s for instance. Its an amorphous thing, and to hold to it turns out to be toxic. Its the past, yet you “conservatives” and “trads” want to go back to it, as if that were a thing one could actually do. Its never happened. Metaphorically you are trying to make us all eat the shit of our previous meals.

communism and fascism are inextricably linked. Mussolini and Hitler were both ardent supporters of socialism before understanding that socialist fight for country, not for class, as was evident for WW1. Mussolini and Lenin wrote to each other frequently even (Lenin Collected Works, 1969, vol.23), and Lenin through these correspondences approved of what Mussolini was trying to achieve through his interpretation of socialism. These are both ideologies form the left, espoused by leaders of the left, and promoted by the left intelligentsia.

They both practiced state centralized capitalism.
They both slaughtered their local socialists
One was nationalist, the other internationalist in nature.
I don’t advocate either. I advocate leftism. Socialism. A functional commune based on democracy of the people. No state or money. Suck it.

>Mussolini and Hitler were both ardent supporters of socialism before understanding that socialist fight for country, not for class
so, they were both ardent supporters of socialism before they stopping being supporters of socialism and became fascists. very enlightening

A reactionary would never have supported socialism at all, the Fascists clearly believed that the socialists were right about many things but disagreed with their program in its entirety. I know this nuance is hard for someone who thinks of socialism and fascism as opposing factions in a holy war, but they share ideological roots.

wait, the democratic socialist movement that became communist Russia did not kill anybody? Lenin referred to his party as the democratic socialist (Montefiore, The Romanovs), same as what American progressives wish to establish in the US. As stated before, the burden of proof is on you that marx was wrong, and his ideology leads to a totalitarian state, that destroys individual rights and freedoms for the sake of a protected class (the party officials). Whenever marxist ideology is implemented in full scale, this outcome is the norm.

fascism is the end state of socialism, it is a society engineered for the protection of a single class of citizenry. Whether the protected class is an ethnic identity, gender identity, racial identity or (in the case of the communist) a party identity, the mechanism of control over the population is the same, and the erosion of individual rights and freedom is the same.

this

>A reactionary would never have supported socialism at all
I agree. Hitler and Mussolini never supported socialism. I wrote the other post under the assumption of an incorrect conception of socialism for the sake of making another point.

>the Fascists clearly believed that the socialists were right about many things but disagreed with their program in its entirety
They agreed that the situation is out of control and that a lot of ordinary people were getting fucked, but it was hard to not agree with that.

>I know this nuance is hard for someone who thinks of socialism and fascism as opposing factions in a holy war, but they share ideological roots.
What nuance? They only agreed on what I already mentioned, but that can hardly be called an "ideological root".

>Lenin referred to his party as the democratic socialist [...] same as what American progressives wish to establish in the US.
Lol, I wish. You'll mind will get blown once you discover that there's content to movements/ideas beyond their names.

>Whenever marxist ideology is implemented in full scale, this outcome is the norm.
If this retarded expression ("implementation of Marxist ideology in full scale") is to mean anything at all, then it means communist society, which only comes after the capitalist society, and can't regress back to it, just as the capitalist society can't regress to feudalism (except as a result of some crazy nuclear event or something). Hence such "implementation" hasn't taken place yet.

>fascism is the end state of socialism
Fascism is a form of a government of a capitalist state. Socialism is a post-capitalist society. The former can't be the "end state" of the latter.

>it is a society engineered for the protection of a single class of citizenry
Socialism is classless.

no such thing as capitalism, its free market. Again, whenever marxist ideology has been implemented in full scale (that is on an entire population of a country) it has ended in totalitarianism, that behaved to protect the political class at the expense of all others. This is the norm. It has happened every time. This is because Marxist ideology is flawed in that it does not account for the nature of the individual, and sees all human hierarchies as mere power struggles instead of systems of order established by merit. Price's law in effect. the term capitalism is a Marxist smeer on free markets. I am curious, can you name a society that is actually flourishing under socialist doctrine? Complete socialist doctrine? No private property, and the whole of the economy is controlled by the public (but not a totalitarian government)?

Your Cold War propaganda line falls on deaf ears with me. I know the truth now.

classless? so a central committee member is not in an elevated state vs a common collective farmer?

>central committee
>collective farmer
Sounds like you're thinking about a Marxist-Leninist state. You're right that it wasn't classless. And we don't even need to consider apparatchiks here, since there clearly were distinct peasant and proletarian classes.
I'm talking about a socialist society, which, again, is classless. I'm not talking about any capitalist state, no matter how much red this state has in its flag.

>no such thing as capitalism, its free market
Feel free to call it whatever you want.

>whenever marxist ideology has been implemented in full scale (that is on an entire population of a country)
If you were familiar with "Marxist ideology" then you would understand why it can't be "implemented in full scale" just "on a population of a country".

>in that it does not account for the nature of the individual
Another mistaken claim that could be easily avoided if only you learned the good habit of reading the primary material on a thing before proclaiming your opinions about it.

>and sees all human hierarchies as mere power struggles instead of systems of order established by merit. Price's law in effect.
No, it doesn't see human hierarchies as power struggles. It only sees class struggles as class struggles. Also, at last we learn what we're dealing with here (a Peterson babby).

>the term capitalism is a Marxist smeer on free markets.
Okay, snowflake. I will stop using the c-word if it hurts your markets so much.

>I am curious, can you name a society that is actually flourishing under socialist doctrine?
Given that globalization has happened, there is but a single society, and it's a c... a free-market one. So no, I can't.

Leave

>you would understand why it can't be "implemented in full scale" just "on a population of a country"
You're right about this, but it also means you'll never achieve your socialist society. It is impossible to coordinate a global prole revolution. Even if you manage it, how would you prevent them from falling into nationalist/tribalist division like USSR/China/Vietnam. You would need to inspire like 4-10 Jesuses worth of faith in these people.

Probably the only practical way to achieve it would be to literally conquer the entire world and deracinate every last capitalist holdout - you have your central point of control and no capitalists left to resist you

what's on second.

PS Stirner was against human rights too, but for entirely different reasons.
The modern right is against human rights because they are used to overwrite other laws of personal freedom (this poor family would suffer if not X, so we must do X)

On the contrary, the world of production is so interconnected that it's hard to imagine national borders making much of a difference once some critical mass is reached during the initial period of the revolution. The capitalists holdouts would disappear just like the feudal ones did, only it would take orders of magnitude less time.

no it doesn't

wow, a bar graph completely devoid of context, source, or anything, but the one thing that is included is "ESTIMATED". just wow.

>We are all humans

You'll be surprised

Attached: latinamerica.jpg (5657x4071, 921K)

>another useless graph
We are all humans, even when we get it in our heads that we’re superior and start doing unspeakable things to one another in the name of the spook of “purity”

It must be fun to post endless bait

>implying other populations haven't killed each other

Holy shit. :3

Time to take your pants off and lay down!

I just can't enough of the fact that I've made this woman masturbate to me. And she says she's a lesbian.

I enjoy such things :D

Capitalism can't kill people because capitalism is the respect for property rights - with the basis being in self ownership. Violence, except in defense, is therefore the opposite of capitalism and purely the realm of others - chiefly the religious societies - those who belief in a mystical non-existant being as the group. The group is merely a figmant of the human mind. Only individuals exist. Those who believe in the group over the individual are those who kill (progs, socialists, collectivists of all types).

Attached: 1549241706524.png (398x482, 170K)

>Fascism is to liberal capitalism as jihadism is to Islam

Islam literally has more in common with fascism than liberal capitalism.

either a troll or zero self-awareness, do you seriously hold that spook=moral belief I don't like/non-spook=moral belief I do like?

well because fascism isnt capable of hitting the numbers capitalism and communism can hit because it implodes in on itself before it can hit higher than a couple million

Not the comparison being made.

I literally called “racial purity” a spook. Are you saying that’s a moral belief?

property rights are also figments of the human mind you brainlet lmao what are you even saying

>replaces your population with 3rd world surplus labour to undermine wages and democracy
>forces you to become a neet and rely on the state
what's the matter goyim? don't like the free market™?

Attached: laughing ally.gif (320x240, 2.03M)

I'm not using the word moral to mean "good" as in moral versus immoral. Anything can be a moral belief, if you choose to value purity then of course racial purity could be moral to you. Your hypocrisy consists in arbitrarily labelling moral beliefs that you do not approve of "spooks" while earnestly believing that YOUR moral prejudices are God-given immutable truths that are NOT "spooks".
Here's an inverted version of what you're doing: equality, progress and humanity are spooks because I don't approve of the moral value judgments behind them. Race, hierarchy, and inequality? totally true. no spooks here

>countries being drained of their skilled laborers who were successful enough to leave their shithole is good
have you heard of brain drain? immigrations bad for everybody and destroys both cultures

>Becoming attatched to a country and its culture is toxic. Everyone should just be able to leave their country for a better one if they don't like the way things are run there, but toxic nationalism prevents this. As a free thinking and behaving individual you have no reason to be chained to the country you live in.
why tho

I wish they would bring it back instead of allowing everything to go to shit like they are doing now.

if there were no cultures, no different societies, then need to immigrate form a place to a better place would be unnecessary.

Multiculturalism is odd to me, I keep hearing this term thrown around that the need for immigrants to assimilate into the culture they choose to join (because the one they are leaving is too toxic for them to remain) will somehow allow for the toxic culture to exist without tension and in harmony to the culture the immigrant decided to move into? Without creating a pocket of hell within the culture the immigrant has moved into, since the immigrant is encouraged to continue those toxic practices that same immigrant wanted to get away from?