Strasserism/NatCom thread

>>133795393
>natcom
in a strasserist society you cunts would burn

>>133795596
Strasserism is pretty much National Bolshevism though.

File: arm_an60.gif (71KB, 229x400px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 229x400px

>>133796456
that's bullshit, they are linked together because strassreites don't want to be associated with natsoc because that has connotations of hitlerism
>hitler ruined natsoc

>>133796739
Can you explain how they're economically and/or socially different?

>>133797074
property and business rights are the main things but can explain to me how strasserism and natsoc are different?

File: 1498867764824.jpg (46KB, 730x780px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 730x780px

>>133796739
>doesn't want to be linked with natsoc
>same salute but with a closed fist
>same emblem but with a hammer and sickle instead of a swastika

>>133797236
Strasserism is based upon worker cooperation and mass-action. It can be considered a far left adaptation of NS, though.

>>133795393
what's the difference between NatCom and NatSoc ?

you know communism is about protecting the workers, and the german NatSoc movement were created by socialist workers right ?

Why should i go NatCom instead of NatSoc if NatCom is just a copied version of NatSoc with "communism" in the name ?

>>133797616
NatCom and NatSoc are differentiated in the fact that NatComs deny property rights and focus more on a collectivist attitude. NatSocs believe in socialism but believe in basic property rights.

>>133798332
oh ok fuck off

File: main-qimg-5a0cdc23f682bcbae29aa9046e0ab912-c.jpg (62KB, 602x527px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 602x527px

>>133795393
Fuck off leftypol

If you admit that nationalism is better then internationalism and that races should be kept separate then you must also see that natural hierarchies are good and any effort to make men equal will fail just like every other movement that trues such a thing

Fascism/Natsoc>>>>>>>Trash>>>>>>Marxism of all variants

>>133798810
Men WILL automatically be equal when they're both met with an almost exact form of ancestral lineage and religion. A small group of individuals with these characteristics will participate in various forms of communalism/collective ownership.

Natcom is a Slavic meme because natsocs viewed Slavs as subhuman that's about the sum of it, they idolize Stalin rather than Hitler even though Stalin essentially plagiarized the ideal of "socialism for one nation" and practicing essential capitalism with other SSR by giving them more trade freedom within union etc. Stalin is why communism ever had a decent standard of living and when he died the Soviet economy died because it was right back to more federalization and stagnation.

What's the difference between socialism and communism?

>>133800030
Men are not equal and SHOULD NOT be equal.

It is necessary to state from the outset that the "immortal principle" of equality is sheer nonsense. There is no need to comment on the inequality of human beings from a naturalistic point of view. And yet the champions of egalitarianism make equality a matter of principle, claiming that while human beings are not equal de facto, they are so de jure: they are unequal, and yet they should not be. Inequality is unfair; the merit and the superiority of the liberal idea allegedly consist of not taking it into account, overcoming it, and acknowledging the same dignity in every man. Democracy, too, shares the belief in the "fundamental equality of anything that appears to be human."
I believe these are mere empty words. This is not a "noble ideal" but something that, if taken absolutely, represents a logical absurdity; wherever this view becomes an established trend, it may usher in only regression and decadence.

Concerning the first point, the notion of "many" (i.e., a multiplicity of individual beings) logically contradicts the notion of "many equals." First of all, ontologically speaking, this is due to the so-called "principle of undiscernibles," which is expressed in these terms: "A being that is absolutely identical to another, under every regard, would be one and the same with it." Thus, in the concept of "many" is implicit the concept of their fundamental difference: "many" beings that are equal, completely equal, would not be many, but one. To uphold the equality of the many is a contradiction in terms, unless we refer to a body of soulless mass-produced objects.
Second, the contradiction lies in the "principle of sufficient reason," which is expressed in these terms: "For every thing there must be some reason why it is one thing and not another." Now, a being that is totally equal to another would lack "sufficient reason": it would be just a meaningless duplicate.

>>133800030
>>133800508
From both perspectives, it is rationally well established that the "many" not only cannot be equal, but they also must not be equal: inequality is true de facto only because it is true de jure and it is real only because it is necessary. That which the egalitarian ideology wished to portray as a state of "justice" is in reality a state of injustice, according to a perspective that is higher and beyond the humanitarian and democratic rhetorics. In the past, Cicero and Aristotle argued along these lines.
Conversely, to posit inequality means to transcend quantity and admit quality. It is here that the two notions of the individual and the person are differentiated. The individual may be conceived only as an atomic unit, or as a mere number in the reign of quantity; in absolute terms, it is a mere fiction and an abstraction. And yet it is possible to lean toward this solution, namely to minimize the differences characterizing the individual being, emphasizing mixed and uniform qualities (what ensues from this, through massification and standardization, is a uniformity of paths, rights, and freedoms) and conceiving this as an ideal and desirable condition. However, this means to degrade and to alter the course of nature.

>>133800508
My opinion was that men are NOT created equal but can become equal through self-discipline and self-determination, if they're genetically similar, at least. Straßerism stresses the idea of self-equalization by having men do the same amount of activity. Bolshevism realizes that all men have different ambitions and thus puts them into positions in which they can become useful in that chosen field to held the collective effort.

>>133798810
The eugenics movement within National Socialist circles seeks to help a homogeneous society through equalization, this means that the quality of the human being is very important because it leads to further development within the human species. This can create the ideal human being which is capable of being equal with their counterparts through equal amounts of mental and physical activity.