Now explain to me why national socialism IS NOT the answer

Now explain to me why national socialism IS NOT the answer.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8JHlGdd_mNA
youtube.com/watch?v=qyb5breW-J0
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

So... national socialism = gibs for brainlets?

SAGE
>SAGE
SAGE
>SAGE

Pic Related

It rewards society by making it work. You work your ass off and get rewarded. Literally "Arbeit Macht Frei"

National socialism brings with it all the inherent weaknesses and retardation of socialism. The guy's biggest issues in that post ("The government squeezes me for taxes. The democracy shaves me skin to the bone.") would be worsened with increased central planning and government control of economy.

He is also a faggot for thinking the world owes him a helping hand. Maybe he thinks he deserves it, by having helped others when he was able, a very different thing, but the world does absolutely not owe him.

So if work is the reward then what's OP complaining about?

LTV pls leave

Why does OP think he's entitled to any "reward" beyond basic compensation from his employer in exchange for his labor? Yeah, taxes are fucking lame, but how does NS result in anything but more taxes to pay for all of the "rewards"?

>giving the unemployed people jobs in the form of making houses for the homeless is retarded
>giving expecting mothers money and then relieving them of their debt according to how many offspring in order to stimulate growth is retarded
>circumventing jewish practices like usury by using barter and lending without interest is retarded

the perfidious albion at it again

Work is not the reward, a healthy society is the reward, and a healthy society promotes the actual working version of socialism that the NSDAP created that was not influenced by Marxism.

What are the "inherent weaknesses and retardation of socialism"? Not trying to be a cunt I'm wondering

The pic is not me and the guy in the pic is not op in that thread either

Who pays the people making the houses? Where does the money for the mothers come from? How is lending sustainable without profit from interest?

Thank you sir

Because that way Scholmo wouldn't get his reparations.

Now get back to work, filthy goy.

That doesn't answer any of my questions, nor does it answer the ones posed in

Not that user but, I think the "inherent weakness" of socialism is that it is based on a false assumption that everyone should be equal and have equal access the resources by virtue of this being alive and that people will just work "because". National Socialism removes most of that problem, it just fails economically because central planners will never be as efficient as individual consumers in a market

The Government you retard. The German government printed all of the money, which is in contrast to the system in America and many European nations where central bank prints and loans all money at interest, which creates a system where the debt can never be paid off, essentially enslaving the country. The government pays the people to make houses. The government loans the money to the women to have children. Lending at interest is usury and is Jewish by nature; there is no need for a people to make profit from itself, but there is a need for a parasitical subculture to profit from the people taking loans.

This system only worked because of the autocratic nature of the German and to an extent Italian governments. It would not work within a modern (((democracy))) like America.

>The Government you retard.

oh boy, here we go...

>The German government printed all of the money

Okay, so then as the population continues to grow, and you continue to print more money to sustain it, how do you stop your currency from inflating into worthlessness? How does your currency maintain any sort of value when you're just shitting it out non-stop?

If it works, and is a genuinely profitable thing, try doing it in the private sphere without relying on government taking the money from actually productive things, wasting most of it by sheer ineptitude and without a shred of actual judgement dumping the remnants of it at the problem. I very much am in favour of minimal or no taxes, and in this environment I fully welcome people coming together, say, by signing up into a voluntary work organisation where they provide labour services from which they buy land and contriction materials and equipment, and build housing for themselves. A major boon of not relying on the government for this is also that you get to maintain control over who benefits from it. You bet that the most lazy, shitheaded wastes of skin will detect gibs and pounce on it, whining and voting against 'government discrimination' if it is a centrally created organisation. A genuinely free market of ideas and exchange (including barter, yes) is far superior to preserve and improve the virtues of your nation.
Free self-preservation and improvement, not groveling to be allowed to sink one's face into the government troth.

Basically, the biggest issue is putting all your eggs in the same basket, and one managed by a useless set of committees and bureaucrats. A private entity knows how much work had to happen for a given profit, so it will be far more careful how it is spent, as opposed to the local council fleecing people and blowing the money on whatever people complain about the hardest. A private company is ultimately in the hands of someone whose life savings, and the future of his family lies in making the best decisions, as opposed to some government employee signing off on some project at the end of the day. And because government spending is a political issue, actually profitable and useful solutions and ideas might not be favoured over nice-sounding rubbish.

>it just fails economically because central planners will never be as efficient as individual consumers in a market

A million times this. The market at this point is essentially a massive decentralized superintelligence capable of easily outplaying any one man.

...

Fiat currency like what is loaned by central banks hyper-inflates due to not being backed by a standard, such as gold. The Weimar Republic faced this very phenomena due to the German government beginning to lend money that wasn't backed by anything. During the war many Germans hoarded vasts amounts of this due to the uncertainty of war, and afterwards many people were left with incredible amounts of money. However, because this money was not backed by something of worth, it was effectively worthless, being just scraps of paper.
youtube.com/watch?v=8JHlGdd_mNA

The Nazis circumvented this by controlling the money supply directly rather than a private bank (The Federal Reserve is why we are 20 trillion dollars in debt, and they are a private bank). Not only that but the standard was labor, as in the more people that were essentially employed by the government, the more people had money to spend, the more currency was in supply, and yet since the government was monitoring its loaning of said currency, it was able to prevent inflation.

Believe it or not, if your government is actually filled with people who care about a country, they usually manage to make it better, unlike career politicians in America who only care about personal success.

If a government is actually populated by citizens and not career bureaucrats then there is no cause for concern. However, the fallacy of democracy directly combats this notion because you cannot have democracy without bureaucracy to some degree. Either the people of a nation band together and form solidarity and reflect this through an autocratic autarky, or they allow themselves to be trampled under the weight of an increasingly impersonal government that is too big for its own good, as we see in modern countries today. You cannot have a function society without some level of government oversight, so pick your poison.

>Not only that but the standard was labor, as in the more people that were essentially employed by the government, the more people had money to spend, the more currency was in supply, and yet since the government was monitoring its loaning of said currency, it was able to prevent inflation.

But that implies that the government is judicious about how much money it hands out. So in other words, all of these loan programs presumably have a cap, and eventually as the population grows, it will be utterly impossible to to give all the potential mothers the loans they need. The Nazi system couldn't last more than 12 years because of Hitler's moronic expansionist ambitions, so that problem never came to fruition. But, provided that you want your system to actually last, you need to consider the long term. You can either let inflation take off by making sure everyone is covered, or you can keep the currency stable at the cost of the nation's welfare.

>Believe it or not, if your government is actually filled with people who care about a country, they usually manage to make it better, unlike career politicians in America who only care about personal success.

The people who care about the country are going to invariably get run over by the people who care about personal success, due to the latter having a far more Machiavellian nature than the former and all the advantages it confers.

youtube.com/watch?v=qyb5breW-J0

This very much depends on what level of power the government operates on, and therefore what level of influence and what avenues to wealth it can grant to people who otherwise could not reach it.

I do agree you do need SOME level of government, for recognising patents and upholding contracts, plus for international diplomacy, securing free trade arrangements. Anything with the power of getting those things is something that has to have authority on a level where it is pretentious and silly to call it anything other than a government.

Having said that, though, I still believe that the mildest poison, as you put it, is to minimise the government and its power, with some dictatorial powers in reach that are strictly in reserve and used only in emergencies. Trouble is, there's already been enough historic examples of such a system going wrong, so the best way forward is trying to come up with decent enough measures against that system gorging itself, unless we can completely abandon central government.

Honestly this is why I am so much in support of Trump, despite him doing a few things I very much dislike. He is a man who has already become immensely rich, had fame and power (of a sort), and was willing to sacrifice it and endure the ocean of bile that washed over him the minute he announced he was running, simply because he wanted to do right by his nation. That attitude, to me, is the absolute key to politics actually approaching any kind of decency.