Capitalism Vs. Natsoc

>>134391819
National Socialism > capitalism, mainly because without a government a ruling power will prevail. Either some rich guy decides to make his own city, and that city a country, or a big corporation decides that buying everything is the best idea and becomes a government.

>>134391819
Socialism is bad and fosters eugenics among those that utilize it. It degrades one's race through survival of the neediest and removes the consequences for bad decisions that allow for races to become like the white one has. Government handouts and free healthcare is the tool of the kike to degrade the goyim.

>>134391819

>Hard mode: economic arguments only, assume nationalism and ethnocentrism in both cases.

That actually makes it easier. Ethno-Nationalism and capitalist economics in one package is an oxymoron.

>>134392145
Without a state there is polycentric law. If somebody does what you've described, they will not be legally enabled to force everyone to stay within those borders. People will leave assuming that he is not a benevolent dictator. Unlike with a state, he cannot rent seek with the law because the law is decentralized. Therefore land owners will need to respect contracts, and people will pick communities based on the laws/contracts that are agreed upon by the community, or else the land owner will have no one to rent to. There will automatically be white nationalism without a state because it will be profitable.

>>134392276
Capitalist economics says only how to accumulate the most amount of wealth, and says nothing about whether or not you ought to, or with what you ought to do with that wealth. Austrian economics will bring you prosperity, but it is up to you to choose what you will do with it.

>>134391819
>economic arguments only
Most successful vs. failed system.
hmm

>>134392921
Why is national socialism a failure?
I want something with meat on its bones

>>134391819
>National socialist ancap brother
Your level of retardation is through the roof anon
Nat soc has more in common with communism than with ancap.

>>134392417
Okay I kinda see what you're saying.
I feel like natsoc is a meme now because it's occurred to me that the vast amount of their wealth actually came from outrageous industrial taxes, seizures of assets, and taxing some people by their net income instead of profit, almost arbitrarily just taking what they need from the wealthiest to redistribute. I've been under the impression for a while that they generated most of the wealth on their own by nationalizing industries and putting profit into the state programs and shit. However they WERE on war economy pretty much the whole time, what they ended up doing was pretty extreme even during peace.

But how would some form of national security naturally form among ancaps. How would ancap America react to a growing threat from a despotic Eastern power that seizes what it needs to fuel its war machine?
>>134393647
It's a random meme that was closest I could find to topic, calm down Emu hunter.

>>134394273
*some businesses by their net income.
Private citizen tax rates were kept low, but businesses and industry were robbed blind essentially.

>>134391819
Natsoc is not a economic system
Capitalism is not a political system

/pol/tards are politically analphabet

>>134394411
Capitalism is a political system when you advocate for the removal of the state and for the replacement of all state functions with private firms.
Also socialism is an economic system, it sucks.

>>134393352
Socialism is a failure, not necessarily the nationalist part.

>>134394411
This.
However, I wouldn't know why natsoc isn't at least partially economic?

>>134394620
*Anarcho-Capitalism
Capitalism is just a economic suffix, just like the socialism is NatSoc.

File: aim.png (119KB, 1186x674px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1186x674px

>>134392921
National Socialism did not fail economically though, during its existence.

I think they both have their merits that we have to look at. On the one hand, statistics show a strong correlation between economic freedom and economic prosperity, but we need to remember than National Socialism is pretty free market as well, only interfering when the interests of the nation conflicts with the actions of the private sector.

I don't think anarcho-capitalism is ever going to see success outside a few micronations, but that's okay, because these places tend to be prosperous and you can't really have a ancap state if the majority of the population isn't also ancap.

National Socialism also hasn't seen great success in terms of longevity and existence. I'm not gonna argue why that is, whether it's their aggression, (((them))), bad luck, I don't care.

>>134394411
>hurrrr Gottfried Feder isn't an economist hurrrr
Fucking meds

>>134394273
You get national security through many different means. Private boarders and ownership of lands is one. You could also advocate for a contractual conscription where in order to live in a community you must serve to protect it as well. But let's not forget that without the state, niggers and mudslimes wouldn't have the slightest chance of immigrating to white countries. In fact with anarcho-capitalism, your communities could easily have contractual clauses such as no niggers allowed which would prevent them from ever existing in white areas.

>>134391819

>assume nationalism and ethnocentrism in both cases.

please assume that this ideology that has nothing to do with ethnocentrism is now ethnocentric.

lol, nice try dude.

>>134394831
Iberians are the worst meds.

>>134394866
There's nothing stopping any ideology from being ethnocentric except for explicitly anti ethnocentric ideologies.

>>134394792
>National Socialism is pretty free market as well
Jej, have a source on that?

>>134394866
>a ideology that praises freedom of association can't be ethnocentric
Good lord NatSocs are braindead.

>>134394792
It's free market in theory, not in practice. The nazis were savage to business owners. Feder's original theories may have been, but when the party got involved, his influence waned a lot

>>134395122
This XD
So true

File: 1776.jpg (92KB, 840x420px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 840x420px

>>134395018
No, I think Hitler did some privatization during his reign but other than that I don't actually know all that much, I'm just going on what the NatSocs say.

>>134391819
Why is ISIS your best friend?

>>134395178
>XD
Found the falseflag.

>>134394981
>>134395122

Capitalism is about ONE thing and ONE thing ONLY.

The accumulation of wealth. If it is more valuable to import 3rd worlders than to pay a local workforce, Capitalists will do that. There is no world in which Capitalism and Nationalism will be able to coincide.

National Capitalism is an oxymoron.

>>134395211
Jesus, why are we White people so amazing and niggers are just so awful?

>>134395271
Name on economist that states that capitalism is solely about the acquisition of wealth. It's about providing services to others where there is demand, and because of this you are allowed to make a profit upon which you will survive and invest further to further provide additional services. NeetSoc is just the same thing but they think that the government does this better than private firms.

>>134395271
>Capitalism is about ONE thing and ONE thing ONLY.
SPELLING WORDS IN CAPS MAKES ME COOL.

>The accumulation of wealth.
Yes, and water is wet.

>There is no world in which Capitalism and Nationalism will be able to coincide.
So you are saying that there can't be or ever have been a point of time where a nation couldn't accumulation wealth for it's self?

File: stalin.jpg (47KB, 624x624px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 624x624px

>>134391819
natbol is the best of both worlds

>>134395271
https://www.google.ca/search?q=augusto+pinochet+chile&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0ps6F0JnVAhUIVT4KHTbpD0QQvwUIIygA
Read up on some history that occurred outside of Germany circa 1933-45.

>>134395271
>People who steal tools, raw materials, product, demand more breaks, demand their culture be respected, commit violence against coworkers, damage equipment, damage facilities, damage corporate rep
>profitable
Pick one, the lefty loonys running the crony-pseudo-capitalist mess we have are not true capitalists, they put their political agenda above economics and by sheer scale of having enough people love what they are doing that they stay in business.

File: 12312412341242.jpg (25KB, 386x390px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 386x390px

>>134395914
>nazbol
>capitalism

>>134391819
>National Socialism German style
Well it should be changed to fit the country it goes into since it was fitted for Germany, If each country does it's own version there can be quite a bit of possibilities so it satisfies anyone

>>134396204
capitalism is not needed anymore

File: IMG_0495.png (116KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1920x1280px

>>134396399
Too late, I'm team yellow

File: fire.jpg (221KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1280x960px

>be capitalist
>watch communists and socialists fight
>sell both weapons
>if they get antsy I use my immense amounts of money to bomb them into shit

What a difficult argument

Combine NatSoc's respect for culture, morals, and nation with Austrian economics.

File: 1455398746764.jpg (52KB, 480x386px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 480x386px

>>134396549
>Nat socialism vs Capitalism thread
>DURR NAZBOL DAH BEST OF BOTH GUYS
>BUT CAPITALISM IS DUMB BTW
Stop posting.

>>134396733
checkmate jews

File: revolution.png (136KB, 500x522px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 500x522px

>>134396549
And? What does "need" have anything to do with it, why shouldn't I want capitalism?

>>134393352
Because in less than 20 years it managed to kill millions of its own people and many millions more of other people, changing the face of Europe and the world forever and allowing the elite to guilt trip people that had nothing to do with it over 70 years later.

>>134396911
the real question is why do you want capitalism?

File: suit.jpg (374KB, 1195x1600px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1195x1600px

>>134397204
Best success rate of all systems seen so far

>>134391819
Natsoc sucks.
Because it aims autarky and there are no real private property, only nominal.

>>134397436
Lmao someone on twitter is mad that I'm not natsoc anymore and trying to use big pharma as an argument against "capitalism"

>>134397008

Either the National Socialists rise to power and attempt to defend Europe from the Communist hordes (and yes, they eventually failed). Or, the German Communists seize power for themselves and instead of Eastern Europe falling to communist rule, it's all of Europe. Fransisco Franco would've lost the civil war to the communist-dominated Republicans if it wasn't for Nazi German air and material support. Picture the scenario: Communist Germany, Communist Spain. That inevitably leads to the already divided France falling into Communist hands.

All of Europe suffers under the same economic and social conditions of the stagnant Eastern Bloc. How is that a better option?

Also: If you really think that it was Germany that was the aggressor in World War 2: you fell for the indoctrination friend.

>>134398013
This is the unadulterated truth. But I want to move forward still.

>>134395435

There's a demand for baby killing, guess I outta supply it!

There's a demand for 3rd world labor, guess I'd better supply it!

There's a demand for cheap products for foreign nations, guess I should supply it!

Capitalism is AWESOME!

>There's a demand for cheap products for foreign nations, guess I should supply it!
> Capitalism is AWESOME!

True. And

> There's demand for lebensunwertes leben killing, guess I outta supply it!
> There's a demand for 3rd world land, guess I'd better supply it!

> Nazism is AWESOME!

>>134398013
I thought this thread was about capitalism vs natsoc.
Just because natsoc managed to delay soviet style communism in europe for a bit does not mean it was successful. It still killed millions of its own people.
In fact, for Ancaps there is no difference between Nazis and commies.
Both are authoritarian socialists / commies who march over bodies to run after some 'greater good' or the 'interests of the nation'.
It's all collectivist garbage that belongs in the same trashcan.

I could also argue that nazi aggression brought about the communist advances in the first place, and especially today is making them possible since natsoc is considered right wing, so in the average normie brain communism must be good because it's far left, ie. not right wing.

You can argue all you want about central banks and call me indoctrinated, but if a nation invades basically all of Europe it is clearly an aggressor.
If you defend your home that's good. If you go out to the crackhouse to preemptively murder starving idiots that might consider robbing you sometime in the future, that is aggression.

What would the 20th century have looked like if germany had been a capitalist country?

File: Edward_John_Poynter_-_Faithful_Unto_Death.jpg (405KB, 1039x1600px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1039x1600px

>>134392417
>>134392564
>>134394841
Whats to stop new man fallacy so the "land owner" totally won't take away your rights or violate contract. Don't say people would just band together against him or not work for him to do evil/apply force because that would require a new kind of man aka the fallacy

>>134401165
Guns

>>134401450
1-800-COME-ON-NOW

>>134401505
What? You don't know what guns are?

>>134401556
Yeah really stopped the american system from going to shit even though it had more checks and balances in stopping its degradation compared to this anarcho-jungle book. I am not going to bet on the 10 men committed to the cause with guns I am going to bet on the 1 that can pay 200 IE the rich land owner

>>134401165
I think that's a micro problem that wouldn't really arise, at least not to the extreme you believe it would.
Land owners have an interest to protect their own lands and would hire private forces to protect their property rights.
One landowner cannot become a despotic emperor because he is more like a micro nation in a great coalition, and upon witnessing his crimes and violations of the NAP and consequent threat to their own properties, he will be stricken from the protection agreement and crushed and land distributed to more benevolent land owners, or resold under whatever terms the landowners union agreed on originally.

In other words... Guns.

File: mogv-part-10-2238-communism-capitalism-and-national-socialism-compared-ver-2.jpg (165KB, 628x682px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 628x682px

>>134391819
natsoc

File: 480329.jpg (129KB, 297x475px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 297x475px

>>134401692
I think you greatly underestimate the skill and cunning corrupt men can use to rise to power.

>>134397008
Never crossed you mind that every power outside Germany turned against NatSoc which was at first successful?

>>134401826
No not really, I just don't think that centralizing power in one location for such men to seize control of is a better idea

>>134401945
Centralized power would be created anyway in your system fairly quickly. Someone does not need to explicitly violate the NAP to become a despotic emperor. There are tons of people all over the world willing to willfully give up their rights for all sorts of things. If he uses his cunning. The majority of people do not hold the same values infinitely so without a centralized morality system to abide by

>>134402326
Then why are you using the fallibility of man as an argument in the first place?

>>134402326
>centralized morality
Centralized morality is never stable. If it was, history would be very boring and redundant.

>>134402326
>"bad thing would happen anyway, therefore maintain bad thing"
Why do you freaks always end up making this absurd non-argument?

>>134401916
I wonder why.
I mean why would you turn against someone attacking you?

>>134394411
Hjalmar Schacht did a good job though.

>>134402429
Because I was asking how your system addressed it so it didn't collapse

>>134402502
It is alot more stable than anything we have had in the modern day. I think Egypt was around a little longer than the USA if I remember correctly?

>>134402541
>implying centralized power is always bad

It is without centralized morality.

A crown without some kind of an altar is cancerous and leaves society too open to social decay

>>134401916
There was no justification for invading Poland sorry. Only moral relativist collectivist can barely justify it.

>>134402678
USA is still here.
>but muh Egyptian stability and no despotism
You don't know Egyptian history too well do you?
Non argument discarded.

>>134402678
Violently subjugating people is always a bad thing, yes.
I know it's hard for commies to grasp that moral precept, but please try.

>>134402688
Danzig. If you were beat in a war and Mexico stole texas and were oppressing the Texans there you would invade Mexico to free them

>>134402688
Have you never heard of the the corridor? Or Poland marching its armies to Germany's doorstep to provoke them?
(not even a nat-soc)
>>134402789
>>134402805
>despotism
Oppression is needed to a degree in every society and way to not address the fallacy in your system which was the main point.

>>134402823
Didn't know Danzig was in Belgium and France...

>>134402678
There is no way for any system to address the cunning of evil men, other than to decentralize power to soften their edge, and to reduce oversight to give people a way out of it if they see it coming.
>>134402823
See, I told you moral relativists could justify it.
>>134402898
Yes I have and it's not a good justification.

>>134402898
I'm not talking about oppression for good, I'm talking about incompetent rulers.

>>134402898
>Oppression is needed
No.
There's no such thing as a need to begin with - anything you'd label a "need" is, at BEST, what Kant labeled a hypothetical imperative that's utterly contingent on an arbitrary value set and asserting some contingent necessity. You could neither maintain that contingent necessity in regard to the proposition that "oppression is needed", nor would it be relevant even if you could since it'd still be nothing more than a hypothetical imperative.

>>134402937
Well using my example America gets beat by China and hands Texas over to Mexico. mexicans begin sporadic killings or just general oppression and millions texans flee back to America

Amerian then invades Mexico to get Texas back and for some reason Brazil feels the need to protect Mexico because the Jewish bankers said do so. So America goes ahead and invades Brazil as well

>>134402553
The Reich did not declare war on France and the Bongs. It defended krauts being slaughtered in Poland. And the Allies chimped out.
Notice that uncle Jo invaded Poland too. But nobody declared a war on USSR.

>>134402988
You call yourself a nationalist but you would not fight at any cost to free your fellow countryman? How is that a bad justification.

>>134403075
Sounds like moral relativism

>>134403246
What about that sounds like moral relativism?
I'm a moral absolutist - moral obligations have nothing to do with "need", they have to do with brute moral imperatives.

Thank you for answering to the fallacy for me btw. I accept your thinking but obviously I will still have my own because I am working off a vastly different series of beliefs compared to you.

>>134403246
They could've open their borders for their fellow countrymen, but instead they wanted land and resources

>>134403100
Well, why do we need shit like America, China or Mexico in the first place?

It's ironic that you want to argue against capitalism by using two of the things capitalists don't want or need: war and states.

Maybe if America didn't stick her nose in Chinas affairs, they would not have been beat. But maybe some fuckhead warmonger lobbied the centralized power system that is the federal government to go to war. Well I guess that served his nations interest greatly if it led to millions of people being displaced.

Good job!

>>134393352
nazi "economic miracle" was completely leveraged on the outcome of the war
if they won they could pay it all back
if they lost it would not matter
stupid idea

>>134403486
You probably would say the treaty of Versailles was ok right?

>>134403551
Because anarchism doesn't exist and can't exist.

>implying private military company and several of the oil barons wouldn't of invaded iraq in the first place under the same justification of breaking the nap or other bullshit. The state just had an extra step it had to trick the people first

>>134391819
National socialism is capitalism, idiot

File: gob.jpg (175KB, 700x1000px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 700x1000px

>>134403859
Wrong it is third position. Capitalism is a cancerous globalist kike loving economic theory. Marxism is also a cancerous globalist kike loving economic theory.

Calling it capitalistic or Marxist is an insult

>>134403551
>two of the things capitalists don't want or need: war and states.
>war
Capitalism is war in its very essence. Look at one of the most achieved form of capitalism in the world: Burgerland. How much do they spend for their army and their wars?

Well the comments here just started going full retard so I'm leaving. Thanks for the fun guys

>>134403824
That justification being what exactly?

>>134404059
Don't bother, these faggots just killed the thread with their non-argument autism

>>134403972
Capitalism is voluntary exchange of goods and services.

An enormous military propped up by extorted money and used primarily for killing brown people is as capitalist as your ass.

>>134404059
Just falseflag an attack and say iraq wanted to hurt your oil production. It's not like you have any laws saying you can't fuck over other countries or the "state" police or government will come and check your claims.

Here look at this super real evidence saddam made with a Chinese company they sent foreign fighters to out company and blew up one of our oil rigs. All right milltary company A,B and C lets go we're gonna jump start the economy with this war. Cheap oil and more guns produced.

Best of all we don't have to pretend to be liberators

>>134391819
National capitalism. Essentially decentralized capitalism combined with armed neutrality. Country A is for the people of country A, people from country B can enter the country but they still have to cross a border and can never earn citizenship, run for office, or vote, and can be expelled from the nation for any reason.

Ideally the government is decentralized, with social laws being left up to the individual regions (states, provinces, whatever your country calls them) although no laws may be passed which interfere with the free market, interfere with the economic or property rights of citizens.

>>134401505
>Man says you have to obey him
>You have had a constitutional right to weapons for centuries
>You have a rifle at home
>Go to a book warehouse
>Shoot him as he drives by

>You have a pistol at home
>Walk up behind him in a theatre and shoot him in the back of the head

>Walk up to shake his hand
>Shoot him twice in the gut

>Shoot him while he waits for a train

You are an American shooting important people shouldn't be a foreign concept to you.

>>134404178
You should read about what is called the "Gunboat diplomacy".

>>134404231
>B-b-but other countries had more land
Britain and France had no obligation to negotiate with Germany. Despite that they did in the name of peace. They let Germany annex Austria, they gave the Sudetenland over to him as he said he was done making territorial demands. Then he annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia, the city of Memel, and then had the gall to demand the Danzig corridor. Or would you suggest Britain and France just sitting by until Hitler came knocking on their door?

Both have their merits and good/bad, natsoc is for times of struggle, free market capitalism is for when things are good.

And FYI the nazis did have some capitalistic policies, they just had to go about the whole thing with no gold reserves, because during ww1 all their foreign assets & gold were seized

>>134404864
You don't need a massive military for gunboat diplomacy. Just enough to bully backwards shitholes. Nobody ever tried to pull off gunboat diplomacy on relevant countries like Britain, France, Germany, America, or Russia. Just backwards shitholes like Japan and China during the late 19th century or Spain.

>>134405059
Right. But I mainly responded to this post: >>134404178
>Capitalism is voluntary exchange of goods and services.

Japan was isolationist. The tenderness of capitalist business paid a visit.

>>134405368
Not really. The state forced them to open up trade. Capitalism didn't do anything.

File: give me liberty.png (273KB, 793x794px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 793x794px

>>134400868
This and only this.

>>134405540
Capitalism needs to extend forever. It will at all cost open new markets and destroy everything which is an impediment to this goal. You write yourself "forced people to open up trade".

Everything must become a merchandise, everything got a price. Now you can buy children and rent a womb. This is the capitalist anthem. If you resist it will try to destroy you at any cost for it can't stop due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

>>134406410
Liberty is what got us into this mess friend

>>134406666
Go be a slave somewhere else.

>>134406883
You are already a slave, turning the country ancap will only weaken it to outside threats.

Please tell me in detail how you expect an ancap society to pull together in times of war

File: Fugio_cent.jpg (96KB, 591x587px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 591x587px

>>134406934
Every man armed, behind every blade of grass - a patriot with a gun. Besides, we wouldn't be getting into so damn many wars if we had a minimal government which sticks by the original foreign policy of the founders - trade and friendship with all, entangling alliances with none.