Thread replies: 12
Thread images: 6
Thread images: 6
Anonymous
Race issue and the class issue 2017-07-15 05:29:16 Post No. 133747298
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Race issue and the class issue 2017-07-15 05:29:16 Post No. 133747298
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 1496110077105.jpg (524KB, 1774x1602px) Image search:
[Google]
524KB, 1774x1602px
We all know what it means to be redpilled on the race question. What about class in this late stage of capitalism?
We reject basically one half of liberalism on the issue of race. What about the other half? What about private property? Do we see capitalism as a force of history that ends with globalism? Do we oppose the entrepreneur attitude as egotistical and based on the fruits of our land, blood, and labor, which provides an infrastructure capital spawns and accumulates from, and in a materialistic, rootless fashion, dispenses with?
Much of globalization's excesses disproportionately hurt the working class, economically and socially. Much of that class is the only real economic unit with much of an interest in the nation state, being attached to the land and homogeneous local communities. They hold the bulk of the genetic stock, but because of their class status globalist capitalism leaves them disproportionately exposed to minorities and their bad communities.
These minorities are essentially here so our economic system can sustain its destructive philosophy of eternal growth, driving down wages and supplementing the low birth rate of whites. One makes us uncompetitive in a global market, the other poses an issue when it comes to the welfare state, which was already an issue for essentially being a form of wealth redistribution across racial boundaries.
Besides that, key to beating the communists is, just like it was 80 years ago, turning workers away from marxism and having a system that looks after them, while in exchange they acknowledge their place in a class collaborationist hierarchy.
What should a Western nationalist position be? Stay true to classical liberal principles and take up victorian attitudes like red pilled libertarians? Or do we take inspiration from the european continent and become 'beefsteaks', introducing a syncretic ideology that's never been a thing around the Atlantic/anglosphere?
>>
File: 1498930655548.jpg (3MB, 3277x4991px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 3277x4991px
Bump for interest
>>
File: Swastika engraving.jpg (178KB, 645x816px) Image search:
[Google]
178KB, 645x816px
>>133747298
>What about private property?
Private property is necessary so that hard workers and innovators can see the fruits of their labors.
>Do we see capitalism as a force of history that ends with globalism?
Depends on what is meant by capitalism. There are two great capitalism: the Industrial and the Financial. The Industrial capitalist uses his wealth to produce goods desired by the populace. He organizes men to work in a fashion that benefits everyone involved. He uses capital and his own skills to create powerful machines of production, and does so at his own risk, as his investment may fail. On the other hand is the Financial capitalist. He loans his money to those who need or want it, relying on the skills of others to create production, and taking his cut as interests. He does not work, but rather his vast capital ever increases by parasitic action off the work of others. He does not risk his money, as debt is debt, and simply must be payed, whether through liens or bankruptcy auctions.
>Do we oppose the entrepreneur attitude as egotistical and based on the fruits of our land, blood, and labor, which provides an infrastructure capital spawns and accumulates from, and in a materialistic, rootless fashion, dispenses with?
Expounding on the previous point, we support and embrace the industrial entrepreneurial spirit as a spirit of production of wealth for all involved, but contrast that with a visceral hatred of the parasitic financialist.
>>
Yes, finance capital is much worse and I've seen old figures identify it even 100 years ago. But it seems like finance capital's dominance is a logical next step in industrial capitalism once you reach a certain level of growth and accumulation. It seems unavoidable. I mean, one of the first things you think of with modern america is wall street.
How do you give the economy a national character without violating economic liberal principles the anglosphere represents?
>>
>>133752209
>It seems unavoidable
Why? If you can define it, you can outlaw it. Make loans for interest illegal, and enforce it with execution. Now no one is making money by just handing their money out and demanding larger payments in return. Some contracts should be illegal.
>>
>>133752209
>How do you give the economy a national character without violating economic liberal principles the anglosphere represents?
You just violate them as necessary to help the nation. Principles like economic liberalism represent an ideal in a simplified world. When applied to a complex world with variables like race and nation, you have to break the ideal where it seems sensible.
>>
>>133752209
Jesus christ you got me writing a lot of shit
>economic liberal principles the anglosphere represents?
The anglosphere does not represent any economic principles, it represents a group of people descended linguistically (and somewhat racially) from Angles, a Germanic tribe that came to power in a Britain and ultimately the world. The economic principles associated with the Anglosphere are not the defining feature of the Anglosphere by any means, impressive though that those economic principles are, and useful though that have been to the foundation of the Anglosphere.
>>
>>133753108
I guess we can. Don't banks have a real function though when it comes to capital investing into industries and maintaining a market balance? Would outlawing usury basically mean making the nation rely on a crappier form of capitalism?
>>
>>133747298
Capitalism has become far too interest and usury focused, leading to piles of debt upon debt while the nation produces nothing. However, private property and economic classes are still a good thing and lead to the best results.
>>
File: 1320102415657.jpg (25KB, 450x529px) Image search:
[Google]
25KB, 450x529px
>>133747298
>Much of globalization's excesses disproportionately hurt the working class, economically and socially.
It's because they put up with it. The degeneracy in the middle and upper classes all comes from this lack of desire to fight back. It's karma. Jesus basically won.
>>
>>133754703
How did Jesus win? And they only aren't fighting back because they're taught to be embarrassed millionaires
>>
>>133755507
While the embarrassed millionaires thing is true, it's also true that anyone who wants to live a comfortable middle class lifestyle is capable of doing so if they have the will and any decent amount of intelligence.
Thread posts: 12
Thread images: 6
Thread images: 6