Who here can convince me that national socialism is any better

Welfare, social security are socialist, to help the people
As nationalists, we want to help our people, our volk, instead of leaving them to rot

>>136492795
Only the strong and capable should survive

>>136492795
You don't think that can't be done on a voluntary basis, like through charity or religion? The welfare state would destroy the pursuit of excellence and natural advantages of whites.

>>136492715
These policies don't work because of the societies in which they are employed.
The true difficulty is in creating or modifying a society so that welfare cheats will be reduced to the absolute minimum.

This is the question which should most be asked: how do you plan to change your society's values to make this policy work.

>>136493041
I want a society in which people help each other because they want to, not one in which the state manages it and creates a society of dependency and gibmedats. A homogeneous society would still suffer from the flaws of the welfare state.

>>136493215
The hope would be that a government run charity would be further removed from the losses which a private charity can expect to have.

Many charities in our society delegate an unreasonable sum to the salaries of executives and advertisement, rather than actually helping the focus of their cause.

Of course, one could say that these losses wouldn't be as severe in a more nationalistic society.

I still hold firm that a mandatory rate and bureaucratic deployment has a slight chance of being more efficient.

>>136493580
A strong welfare state would destroy the sense of accomplishment, achievement, and excellence that made the white race great.

>>136492912
I think that there can be barriers to place on welfare to mak it work. For instance, having two or more children would allow one to collect social security, as one can assume they will be woeking and tax paying. If one is using general welfare due to unemployment and cannot find a job after lets say 3 months, then they will either choose to not be able to receive welfare or be sterilized. Socialized medecine can be done with this as well. While not having a welfare state would the least time consuming to keeping incentives in check, a nation could create policy as to alleviate disgenic outcomes that welfare brings.

File: 1430562611248.jpg (483KB, 1188x1515px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 1188x1515px

Joooooin Uuuuus

File: tread.gif (1MB, 457x340px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 457x340px

>>136492795
Social security is a fucking ponzi scheme, it helps no one.

>>136497692
And a welfare state would destroy the white values they're trying to create.

>>136492715
>>136492912
Because outside of America, rightists in ethnic countries have no problem with welfare and communalism towards their own kind. This isn't some dystopian "Big Brother" that lolbertarians think of, if the government wasn't national-socialist the people who make it become that.

People in National Socialism felt pride in making things and helping fellow Volk. If they made a product they made it well, knowing other people would provide the same help for them.

Judanized hypercapitalists can barely comprehend such a life because the idea of parting with decadence and collective racial power is completely alien to you

There is no need for "Charity" to be separate from government as in NatSoc it would function the same way as welfare. It's more efficient and requires fewer bureaucrats to centralise it.

>>136493746
No it wouldn't, because you cannot comprehend how Western cultures can have people pushing for collective beauty and excellence. Societies image is judged by it's worst-off people

And cultural beautiy, which Americanized capitalism destroys, requires collective effort and guidance. Beautiful cities with vernacular and consistent architecture require everyone to work together to create a work of art. Showboating individualism makes for ugly and cultureless shit like Toronto and Las Vegas

>>136498581
All of the things that you want can be established in a society that is based on private property ethics.

File: the rich.png (2MB, 1486x1598px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1486x1598px

>>136498850
Capitalism is infighting, natsoc societies have enough market economics to promote hard work but not enough liberalism where companies and people excessively try to destroy the competition, run people out of jobs, showboat and promote decadence and excessive profits.

Capitalism does not promote "White excellence" since the worst aspects of whites, such as rednecks, American degeneracy/decadence of the judeo-rich, hillbillies, pollution, poverty, obesity, litigation, pop culture, advertising, social discohesion are a good argument against capitalism.

"White excellence" is collectively creating a society that is one powerful and beautiful movement working hard for collective racial excellence, not individual profits

>>136498581
>Because outside of America, rightists in ethnic countries have no problem with welfare and communalism towards their own kind.
Nope, the fascists in this country, which are still part of the same organization as the first fascists, now support National Capitalism.
>People in National Socialism felt pride in making things and helping fellow Volk. If they made a product they made it well, knowing other people would provide the same help for them.
Congrats, what does it have to do with forced redistribution of wealth?
>Judanized hypercapitalists can barely comprehend such a life because the idea of parting with decadence and collective racial power is completely alien to you
Judeanized Nazi roleplayers can't separate anything from government entity.
>There is no need for "Charity" to be separate from government as in NatSoc it would function the same way as welfare.
Why?
>It's more efficient and requires fewer bureaucrats to centralise it.
How?

Man, I know why your a socialist, it's because you're a young utopian that isn't critical enough about his own beliefs.

>>136501087
>Nope, the fascists in this country,

I'm more than likely talking to an American OP though. As you know, American capitalism lead to causing the degeneracy of the west

>Congrats, what does it have to do with forced redistribution of wealth?

In capitalist societies 80% of the paycheques going towards the wealthy go straight towards decadence. It's fine to take away the yacht-money of some industrialist to make an entire working-class section of Hamburg more cultured and beautiful, effecting thousands of people

Socialists were incapable of doing this as they didn't hold ethnic culture and preservation to any regard, particularly Maoists

File: snek.png (160KB, 1456x819px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1456x819px

>>136500334
>companies and people excessively try to destroy the competition, run people out of jobs, showboat and promote decadence and excessive profits.
That sounds like the kind of thing that happens when the economy is less liberal.

>>136502219
You said:
>rightists in ethnic countries have no problem with welfare and communalism towards their own kind
And that, in my country, is flagrantly false.
> It's fine to take away the yacht-money of some industrialist to make an entire working-class section of Hamburg more cultured and beautiful
But that's a completely different discussion, as public projects are not welfare.

I don't understand your trust in government either, the rich capitalist will be decadent but the despot is to be trusted with more power and wealth than even the greatest capitalist?