NatSoc Old Man Thread

I'll "redpill" you shitposters until you're converted to NatSoc or your faith is reaffirmed.

Pic related, it's who you should be reading instead of shitposting day and night.

Heidegger renounced his early nazi leanings like a bitch. Beta as fuck.

Can people still run businesses under a NatSoc government? Are there any rules regarding capitalism?

Coming from a position of knowing almost nothing about NatSoc.

Why socialism?

Okay... So what do you do when taxes meant for roads end up being parsed out because of partisan politics??? What stops this legal plunder in a socialist system?

Not only can you uneducated plebs not understand Sein und Zeit, but there's absolutely nothing of value to understand.

hint: if he's right, then blm is right.

It has as much state intervention as we do now but the intervention is aimed at making the country stronger rather than rewarding (((political donors))).

See
>dem programz
Seems a bit gibsy to me

National Socialism aims to always make markets serve the citizens of the state, rather than the other way around. You're likely coming from a mindset that assumes that there are objective laws/truths to economics. There aren't. In other words, it's obvious that today private enterprise would be allowed in a 21st century National Socialist state, but that says nothing about the future. Private enterprise is secondary to other concerns for a National Socialist.

You got me, really deep stuff here.

National Socialism historically has nothing to do with what you are assuming "socialism" means in this context. North Korea is not Democratic, despite the word being in its name, similarly National Socialism has nothing to do with the Socialism of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

Yea and those different conserns change with every new potus. Explain how that will last?!?!

POTUS? National Socialists are in favor of a one-party state based on the leader principle. We wouldn't have a POTUS. I didn't realize I needed to go back to basics to this degree....

Well explain what it means

hush now

I want to read Heidegger, but I hear you have to be very well-read in philosophy, particularly the Greek philosophers. Is it worth it if I only have read a little Aristotle and Plato?
Well he had to if he didn't want to become a total pariah

It means the organization of a National State for the benefit, growth, protection, and health of a given people. Some such states, for varying reasons, may adopt more interventionist economic policies, others may not.

By assuming that the conceptual pole of all political analysis begins with a completely unregulated market on one end and the complete ownership of all private property on the other, you'll falling for the binary that Socialists propose, but you're simply reversing which side of that pole you think is better. You're actually trapped in a Marxist form of thinking. Ironic isn't it?

Like almost all Philosophy after Descartes, there is a need to do some preliminary reading, however, this should not stop you from trying.

If you can get through The Republic, some of Aristotle's works, and, most importantly, Nietzsche, Heidegger will make some sense. If you add in some reading on key philosophical words in Ancient Greek, it will be understandable to someone not trained in Philosophy. I actually think Nietzsche is the real key.

Just a simple thought experiment for you. Let's say you lived in a society with your preferred level of economic regulation/state intervention. And, let's say in that society a single 28 year old, by luck mostly, ended up owning 99.9% of all the wealth of that society. Would you accept that condition if it occurred through complete legal means via the market rules of that society? If yes, a follow up question. Would you actually expect that the society would simply accept such a situation?

White Nationalists criticize gibs me dat as a way of bringing people into our movement and intensifying racial solidarity. We don't actually believe in a social darwinist war of all against all. You sound like a "conservative" who doesn't know that conservative/libertarian politics is just a cover story in a society that has banned explicit racism. Did you really fall for that meme?

You know I never said anything that could be construed as describing socialism in any way but I think I get the point. Libertarians will excuse market failures in the name of liberty but NatSocs won't and I don't either so we might have some common ground. I just don't think there's much that has to be done at all to prevent said failures. Pretty much everyone except libertarians would agree with your aims, they just don't see the nationalist aspect as being noteworthy. Almost everyone believes in limited immigration and nativism which is basically what nationalists believe in.

I get your point about something like Faceberg.
>second part
So what's to stop the same disincentivization to be in any way productive from happening in a natsoc economy after several generations of gibs and programz?

>let's say in that society a single 28 year old, by luck mostly, ended up owning 99.9% of all the wealth of that society. Would you accept that condition if it occurred through complete legal means via the market rules of that society? If yes, a follow up question. Would you actually expect that the society would simply accept such a situation?
1. Yes
2. Yes. It isn't possible to accumulate that much wealth without selling something that people want to buy.

No.
An all encompassing free market monopoly is just as bad as some Marxist regime

As I've noted above, libertarians have simply fallen for a meme. What else is the obsessive drone from American Libertarians about "states rights" other than a coded way of saying segregation, i.e. voluntary association, was a good thing? This is what worries me most about many young rightists, they seem to be unaware that the worldviews they've adopted were not meant to be taken seriously but are ways of maintaining a White Nationalist perspective in the face of a society which does culturally allow for it to be discussed openly.

>you can't get rich without selling things people want to buy

This post is a gateway redpill. And a good one at that. It'll get ya hooked

explain

No, let's not dance around the situation by allowing you to make assumptions about the "objective" laws of economics.

1. You would accept that condition if it meant starvation and sudden death for you and everyone you cared about?

2. By what social mechanism would said people be kept in such a situation without violently rebelling? Also, please don't front-load in your position's escape-hatch by dismissing the premises of the thought experiment (i.e., "they would have enough food because the rich guy has to sell to make profit.")

Then have some sort of control against monopolies. Maybe have price controls in uncompetitive areas of trade. You should still let someone win if they have what it takes.
I think I can actually agree with you here, to an extent. It seems as though libertarianism, voluntarism, anarchism etc are all pretexts for white nationalism. I mean you don't need right wing death squads to ethnically cleanse blacks. We had close to a 100,000 black slaves in this country in the mid 1700's and they have virtually no living descendants today. They couldn't compete on a voluntary basis.

Where is the incentive in a market that is so heavily regulated in a nat-soc economy? There's a reason the industrial revolution happened in the free market. A fascist state would have no ingenuity or new creations in industry, science, tech, etc.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. If your question was hypothetical, then yes national socialism is the answer. I find this sort of thing speculative and uninteresting because I believe that today, in developed countries such as mine, these issues can be avoided very easily while allowing the market to run 90% unrestricted.

>So what's to stop the same disincentivization to be in any way productive from happening in a natsoc economy after several generations of gibs and programz?

This is an excellent question that requires a lot of philosophical work to get to the pay off.

The really short snobbish answer: The NSDAP solved the problems of modernity for the individual.

The long answer: To be a modern means, for the most part, to have been born in the 17th century or later in a place where capitalism had taken root. Note: place being a city in a mostly feudal country, or a semi-developed/developed nation-state today. This is key to understand because us moderns are in psychological crisis nearly every moment of our lives because we live in a society that is so revolutionary (this is a consequence of the maturation, expanse, and spread of capitalism), that we cannot ever feel sure of a steady sense of our self. In one lifetime you will watch the basic family structure change (gay marriage). You will watch your racial identity change (Polish/Italian people are white now), you will watch the basic organization of your daily life change multiple times every decade if not more often. This permanent state of crisis can only be mediated and given a context against the background of a tribal identity. That tribal identity, however, with stable and defined roles that last one's entire lifetime, cannot be taken from pre-modern societies because they are, as history shows us, too small for the now global scope of our lives. So, one needs the nation to provide all of these functions like a tribe. Productivity was never an issue where one had a tribe in pre-modern societies despite the fact that many of those societies had plenty of food and comforts relative to their time. The people in those societies were productive because to be unproductive would mean to lose one's identity completely, to risk not being part of the tribe.

The market must serve the state.

There is no "free" market in a fascist society.

>If your question was hypothetical

I literally labelled my question a "thought experiment....

>then yes national socialism is the answer.

The point of that thought experiment was to show there were conditions a market could create that you would oppose, you've ducked the question again. And, further, that your opposition would be pointless because as a way of explaining how society _is_ rather than how it _ought_ to be, you only live in a fantasy world where you and all your friends would revel in your servitude.

>I find this sort of thing speculative and uninteresting

The society I'm in favor existed in an actual country for over a decade and appears as a benchmark in nearly every political discussion or debate of any length.

>I believe

No, you should think these things instead and then reflect deeply on why you think them.

How can you say on one hand that I'm dodging the question by not answering it as a hypothetical thought problem, then say that it isnt hypothetical because it actually happened, then say I've ducked the question when I admit that your conclusions would be right if your premises are right? Why don't you start trying to convince me of your premises. I'll agree with you if you're saying that it's possible for one person to accumulate all the wealth and for this to cause problems for everyone else but not under the political system and culture we have in this country, yours and a few others.

Thought experiments are hypothetical by definition. I wasn't trying to force you to say National Socialism is the answer, as I noted before, I was trying to get you to recognize that you have a lot of fuzzy ideas about economic laws being objective and transhistorical first. You don't seem to have internalized that yet.

What is so bad about the way things are now, that a radical change is required, and what are some of the things that you would see changed?

>No, you should think these things instead and then reflect deeply on why you think them
Believe it or not but at one point I thought it was a great idea to have a state-run, Soviet style economy. Please don't act like you're the only one thinking when other people disagree with you.

>state-run, Soviet style economy

So you believed in a socialist state once? And now your something akin to a libertarian? Ever consider why you swing wildly between two poles of the political spectrum?

Also, it's not disagreement when you make wild, sweeping statements about how 90% of our problems can be solved by X. It's just saying things to say things.

>What is so bad about the way things are now, that a radical change is required

This is an excellent and difficult question, but it's partly defined by audience. Given the fact that most people posting here, though not all, are upper middle-class and poorly socialize, White Nationalists and, by extension, National Socialists would seemingly have little to offer them. Ours is a reviled world view known worldwide as headed by a hated man, in the West at least, and one which asks for great sacrifice to achieve large and difficult goals. Remember though, your conditions, nor mine, are those of most white members of the working class in the United States. I don't need to show you, I think, that things are so awful we need a deep revolutionary change in the US. What I do need to show you is that there are a large number of people who have now organized themselves, though not a majority, and are desperate to elect a Nationalist to power. My Evidence? Trump. These people are comfortable with his race-talk, his anti-democratic views and proposals, and agree with his vision of us as presently in an existential crisis. I also think we are, but can admit that there are great pleasures in a comfortable life when you have books and good drink and good friends. The only question is, can we White Nationalists mainstream antisemitism, the lynchpin of our worldview, through the Trump movement and/or its descendents/off-shoots? If so, we would essentially have a large, popular, anti-democratic National Socialist movement in the United States, even if it weren't explicitly called that.

>and what are some of the things that you would see changed?

Chiefly, the redistribution of resources away from those who aren't part of our tribe to those who are. The reinstitution of laws that would promote traditionalist ideas of gender, family, and public honor. Finally, the end of Jewish power over the relationships within and between nations through international organizations.

So, say America would become as you say; what would happen to everyone else that does not fit in; do you envision a mass shuffling, and America remaining united states, but just perhaps and area here and an area there is this particular ideology, area here and there that particular ideology?

Since the United States is land mass whose history is impossible to imagine without non-white people, I would propose voluntary incentives to relocate those who are not white out of the country first. Then, as was the case in Germany, once the demographics return to a large super-majority of white people, we can allow permanent residents. If voluntary measures fail their is forced relocation.

I would hope that, despite part of our landmass becoming the new nation of those non-whites who voluntarily left, this country would remain America. It would be essential that we publicly and institutionally revise our received history to recenter the history of White Americans to instill a greater sense of pride and to stabilize the white identity within the country.

It was more than ten years ago now and the main reason I liked it was for full employment and I didn't think that the reason it failed every time was because it was a bad idea, but I fell for something related to the "communism has never been tried" meme. I never really believed that wealth/income equality was necessarily a bad thing so my opinion hasn't changed much there. If there's one person who changed my mind on economic issues, it was (((Milton Friedman))). That said I'm fucking glad that Thatcher made sure not to take him too seriously and only pushed people just far enough that they wouldn't have a revolution. This is why I say 90% unrestricted, Friedman would have liked it to be 100%, ancaps want 110% since they want to privatise justice and defense as well. I also don't think that nothing should be provided to the poor. I still think you should have workhouses at the absolute least. What we have in this country right now is closer to my ideal than I could hope for when it comes to the economic issues. As for cultural issues, civil liberties, personal freedom etc I don't agree with libertarians at all and never have. Does this mean I'm already a national socialist? I don't buy into the idea that heavy state intervention in economic planning and wealth redistribution is necessary right now or that it generally should be in a country with this political system and culture, to ensure society doesn't fall apart, there are no rebellions etc. Maybe in Germany in the 30's but I don't know much about the fine details of their government's policies regarding economic issues so I couldn't give you a qualified answer about that. What I will say is that the fine details matter.

Heidegger had absolutely nothing to say about social issues, his infatuation with national socialism was of a metaphysical kind that had no representation in actual economic or social changes. In fact one of the things that Heidegger doesnt have is "ethics" in the sense that most major philosophers had before him, it is what makes him so attractive. His main project was to strive beyond conventional metaphysics.