Anonymous #1 1d

Wrong

-4

Anonymous OP 1d

^ Regular moron.

17

Anonymous #1 1d

Read anything about natsoc, Strasserism, futurism, Falange, etc.

-2

Anonymous OP 1d

None of those are socialist.

14

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1d

Erm, what happened to him?

-4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1d

They all are btw

-2

Anonymous OP 1d

Nothing half so humiliating as what happened to your guy.

4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1d

I’m not even a hitl*rite

-3

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1d

International socialist vs national socialist

9

Anonymous OP 1d

You’ve been spamming Nazi slop all morning I literally just did the block test on you. You’re all the same brain cancer in different skulls anyway.

2

Anonymous #3 1d

No such thing, get out of here with that Nazi disease

8

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1d

Nationalizing industry for a single cohesive nation (Nazism) vs nationalizing industry for a union of nations (Marxist-Leninism)

-4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1d

Either way you guys both suck and American ideals are better

-3

Anonymous OP 1d

fym not "even"

5

Anonymous #3 1d

Nationalization ≠ socialist you’re literally just tripping balls atp

17

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1d

Like yes go drink up Hitler’s piss and keep telling us all it’s orange juice

12

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1d

Lmao someone's panties are in a twist. Nationalization of industry is a core tenet of transitioning from a capitalist economy into a socialist or communist one, but I'm very anti Nazi. I just don't think you commie and globalist socialists are any different in terms of wanting overbearing government or wanting to oppress people

-4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1d

Go take that shit back to Siberia or Austria or wherever it came from if you wanna preach so bad

-4

Anonymous #3 1d

I’m a libertarian you pretentious fuck🤦🏻‍♀️

6

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1d

Can I get some books then

0

Anonymous #3 1d

This guy a blockhead. 🗿

7

Anonymous #1 1d

Socialist and Right wing nationalization are completely different in any case. 😭

3

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1d

Nah but being serious do you even know what that means? 5 days ago you were calling to abolish capitalism

0

Anonymous #3 1d

And I’ve kept calling every day since then! I’m a socialist libertarian, that doesn’t make me less of either of those things.

6

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1d

Libertarianism is by nature right wing economically and anarchist leaning socially, but I figured you'd just use it as a new name for anarcho communism

-2

Anonymous #3 1d

Anarchism is inherently anticapitalist you just don’t know what words mean, goofball

1

Anonymous #3 1d

nationalization within a bourgeois state is a core tenant of fascism, not socialism. fascism is the dictatorship of and over monopoly capitalism, to which the nationalization of critical industries under a capitalist mode of production, is sometimes necessary to keep the entire system afloat

9

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1d

You could apply it to communism, socialism, and capitalism, and say that because they are structures that necessitate government, either to protect property rights or centrally plan the economy, they cannot coexist with anarchism. That is why I said lean towards instead of actualize.

-1

Anonymous #3 1d

I know why you said it, that doesn’t magically make me agree with you. You’re still mistaken even if you’re articulate.

8

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1d

Please explain how in any way anarchism is antithetical to capitalism without it being applicable to communism under the exact same logic

5

Anonymous #3 1d

buzzword soup

5

Anonymous #3 1d

Capitalism is literally a system of class hierarchy that extracts wealth from the lower classes to the higher, and uses violent coercion to enforce and maintain itself. It is authoritarian by its nature and can never be otherwise. Communism can (conceivably) be undertaken voluntarily but capitalism cannot.

13

Anonymous #3 1d

and anarchism preceded capitalism. much of human history was spent in anarchy. our states emerged as necessary compromises between social classes. humans have not always organized themselves into class society. history is only 8000 years old, much of human prehistory was spent in relative anarchy

9

Anonymous _orangutan 1d

primitive communism/anarchism -> slave society -> feudal society -> capitalist society is how history has unfolded so far

5

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1d

Free market capitalism is literally the only solution that has in practice existed without heavy government intervention, can and did evolve out of bartering naturally, and unlike socialism and communism which require central planning to ever be implemented, it requires no force hierarchy since theoretically one could protect their own property if there were no government.

-2

Anonymous #3 1d

Practically it helps to have some force hierarchy so you don't end up with roving gangs trying to steal your shit or communist activists (whats the difference lol)

2

Anonymous #3 1d

capitalism is centrally planned, it’s just planned by individual capitalists rather than the larger working class. when consolidation and monopoly is the goal, centralization is an inevitability. learn capitalism please. capitalists centralized the feudal mode of production under themselves. this began some 600 years ago with the acts of enclosure and forcible sale of common lands to the bourgeoisie

11

Anonymous #3 1d

Every single thing you just said was wrong. Markets predate capitalism; sweeping government intervention has ALWAYS been necessary to keep capitalism afloat because it keeps self-destructing otherwise (see the Gilded Age); there are no examples of capitalism sustaining itself without government violence either, because workers end up rebelling every time the owning class follows their own interests.

6

Anonymous _orangutan 1d

they created and vested power into the state so that they could better centralize production under themselves. history has always been a series of class struggles. when the existing order was feudal, capitalists sought to undermine and expand their class power against the aristocracy and clergy, thus parliament’s power was gradually expanded as feudalism progressed

13

Anonymous _orangutan 1d

Free market capitalism is by nature not centrally planned

-1

Anonymous #3 1d

I am BEGGING you to know what you’re talking about before you start talking about it dude, this is embarrassing.

6

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1d

While true that markets predate capitalism (I even mentioned this prior), it's not really relevant. Free market capitalism is completely separate from that. If you're talking about how on some level, capitalism necessitates a form of government, or one with a force hierarchy, to protect property rights, I again already mentioned this.

-1

Anonymous #3 1d

In theory though one could just protect his own property rights, which is why I said that in response to you saying that it couldn't exist even in theory without government intervention. It just isn't practical

0

Anonymous OP 16h

Oh futurism is just dogshit, you really have no idea what youre talking about

10