Capitalism Vs. Natsoc

Capitalism (libertarian or anarcho)
Vs
National Socialism (German style, or traditional Fascism)

Hard mode: economic arguments only, assume nationalism and ethnocentrism in both cases.
Who has the better economic system?
>muh nazis tax industry too much and seize shit
>muh roads!
Ok beyond that.

Other urls found in this thread:

google.ca/search?q=augusto pinochet chile&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0ps6F0JnVAhUIVT4KHTbpD0QQvwUIIygA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

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.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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?
It's a random meme that was closest I could find to topic, calm down Emu hunter.

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

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

Sup Forumstards are politically analphabet

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.

Socialism is a failure, not necessarily the nationalist part.

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

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

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.

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

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.

>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.

Iberians are the worst meds.

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

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

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

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

This XD
So true

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.

Why is ISIS your best friend?

>XD
Found the falseflag.

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.

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

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.

>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?

natbol is the best of both worlds

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.

>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.

>nazbol
>capitalism

>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

capitalism is not needed anymore

Too late, I'm team yellow

>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.

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

checkmate jews

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

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.

the real question is why do you want capitalism?

Best success rate of all systems seen so far

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

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

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.

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

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!

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?

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

Guns

1-800-COME-ON-NOW

What? You don't know what guns are?

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

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.

natsoc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hjalmar Schacht did a good job though.

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

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?

>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

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

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

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

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

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)
>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.

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

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.
See, I told you moral relativists could justify it.
Yes I have and it's not a good justification.

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

>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.

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

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.

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

Sounds like moral relativism

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.

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

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!

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

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

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

National socialism is capitalism, idiot

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

>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

That justification being what exactly?

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

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.

...

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