Debate @steeel Billet on the merits of Fascism above all other systems. - If you know a capitalist, communist or socialist on the farms feel free to tag them over here so we can get their input

[Sneaky lurker]

Not to politisperg too much, but, capitalism is a bad system because its basis is in materialism, which is evil.

????
How would an economic system account for God? How could an economic system not be materialistic?

I must have not been clear enough. I genuinely hate economics and monetary systems because they bring society to low levels of dignity. CAPITALism focuses on the amassing the maximum possible amount of CAPITAL, very often by any means nescessary. This is obviously quite evil because it puts man's primary focus on monetary matters and greed. Socialism and communism is evil in the same way because both view man's primary purpose as the production of (das) capital. The moral failure of every economic system is that it assumes man's purpose as the production of capital.
Now, something good, like fascism, uses the system of trade not for amassing maximum capital, but for the good of the nation. I'm referring both to the individual and the state amassing maximum capital. At higher levels, these merge into one entity, where the greedy individual essentially becomes one with the government and uses its power to further both his own means, and, either by accident or in tandem, the means of the state. Now, what do I mean by "good of the nation"? I mean the furthering of national development and the use of state power and capital to create a prosperous and wealthy society. Wealthy in the spiritual and familial sense. This can be, for example, programs providing support to new families (e.g. the NSDAP policy; though don't take this as a full endorsement of the party); furthering national education to create a nation of thinkers, not workers; free, or at least more affordable public healthcare.
I realize how this last point might seem a bit "communist" to some, but, most problems of socialized (taxpayer funded) healthcare come from a few places, negro, white trash, and whatever other mystery meat freeloaders and governmental corruption. Providing healthcare to everyone* in the society is a fundamental good, because treating the act of healthcare as a financial transaction is one of the biggest failures of a society. (*Freeloaders will be eliminated on a case-by-case basis by examining their behavior and their efforts. Welfare leeches are quite easy to spot.)

I'm not going to continue off-topic discussion in this thread, but I didn't think this response warranted its own thread.

If I made a debate thread, would you continue to expand on your thoughts?

Sure.

@XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG can we get the capitalist take on this?

 

[Tablet County]

Sophist niggerbabble.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

@XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG can we get the capitalist take on this?

Sure thing

@Steel Billet You're treating an economic system as if it assigns a purpose to people, and everything else hinges on that.
The thing is, an economic system is a way of referring to patterns of interaction among individuals when they act in the real world.
If someone chooses to prioritize money above everything else, then that priority comes from that person. It's not like that same individual would suddenly become spiritually oriented under any other arrangement. Either the same priorities are pursued through different channels, or someone else interferes and restricts what they're allowed to do.

So when you say that capitalism is evil because it "focuses on the amassing the maximum possible amount of CAPITAL", you're attributing a goal where there is none. What does exist is individuals engaging in exchange, production, saving, or consumption. Some accumulate more than others depending on what they do and what others agree to exchange with them.
The same issue carries over into your alternative. Like, you said that trade should be directed "for the good of the nation", but that introduces a phrase that has no independent content. That is, a nation is not an entity that can evaluate or choose. What exists under the label of "the good of the nation" is individuals making decisions and imposing them on others.
Once it gets to "Freeloaders will be eliminated on a case-by-case basis" the standard is no longer fixed, and the classification depends on whoever is applying it at the time. That makes outcomes contingent on discretion rather than any stable rule.
If the concern is that people reduce their lives to monetary pursuits and neglect other aspects, that's a concern about what individuals choose to value. Rearranging how control over resources is enforced does not generate different values. What does change is who is allowed to act on theirs.

 

[JohnnyG]

Normie: "What is the opposite of all this? Of infinite Third World rapists, men in lingerie twerking with castrated children, and turning our institutions into DMVs full of obese DEI hires?"
Leftist: "Fashism!"
Normie: "Fine, whatever, anything else is worth trying..."

 

[Starefag]

Facism is an ideology that only arises from retarded desperation and has no long term lifespan unless anchored in something. For most thirdworld shitholes, it's anchored in a population that's too fucking retarded to rise up because of a lack of education.
For places in the middle east, Oil allows the centralized state to keep a grasp on power through the money it provides.
However, to have a first world country, you need educated populations. And educated people are generally taught the ideas of critical thinking. (Retarded American systems nonwithstanding. We're talking about an ideal of education.)

Critical thinking is anathema to a facist regime. You cannot have a well educated population capable of operating the mechanisms of the first world in facism. At best you have china.
"But Stare, China is Communist"
Centralized Communism and Facism share so much DNA it isn't even funny. Mussolini, the nigger who invented it, was once a card carrying socialist.

 

[Preacher ✝]

I'm just gonna leave this here.

 

[Starefag]

Also I just realized you're comparing an economic system to a system of governance. Which is double retard points.
Capitalism doesn't lay out the design of leaders and institutions. Only a system by which goods and services are exchanged.
Facism can be capitalist, Facism can be communist. These are economics.

 

[Travis Touchdown (REAL)]

I ruv communism rong time

DAMN THE FAMINE NICE

 

[BootyDickAssNigga]

 

[Sneaky lurker]

View attachment 8842135

What makes you think we are fighting?

 

[BootyDickAssNigga]

What makes you think we are fighting?

I don't, I just thought it was a somewhat fitting picture when debates happen.

 

[draggs]

Mussolini couldn't even get the fucking trains to run on time. And that was his whole hook for fascism!

both view man's primary purpose as the production of (das) capital.

I mean the furthering of national development and the use of state power and capital to create a prosperous and wealthy society. Wealthy in the spiritual and familial sense. This can be, for example, programs providing support to new families (e.g. the NSDAP policy; though don't take this as a full endorsement of the party); furthering national education to create a nation of thinkers, not workers; free, or at least more affordable public healthcare.

@Steel Billet nigger all you're saying is that capitalism and socialism/communism misallocate more resources than fascism does. Which is a hilarious joke, considering the economic performance of fascist states. Support to new families just means mo money fo dem progrums, or less taxes for new families. So we're back to material wealth at the bottom of it all. Systems like fascism don't make thinkers, as thinking is dangerous to the continued existence of the system. Nazism in particular was hostile to the old channels of spirituality, as they caused loyalties in individuals outside loyalty to the secular divinity of the Party-State

 

[Rapesputin]

Also I just realized you're comparing an economic system to a system of governance. Which is double retard points.
Capitalism doesn't lay out the design of leaders and institutions. Only a system by which goods and services are exchanged.
Facism can be capitalist, Facism can be communist. These are economics.

It's pretty clear that by "fascism" OP means corporatism

 

[Fat Camp Intern]

All I know is that nothing is gayer than some random fag in reddit or youtube comments blaming Capitalism for all of life's problems. Like, no motherfucker, private ownership is not the reason your gender reassignment surgery went horribly wrong and you now have a beefstick made of forearm

 

[Steel Billet]

Sophist

What?

it assigns a purpose to people

While it may not be immediately obvious, a capitalist society inherently does this.

you're comparing an economic system to a system of governance

Because the concepts are very closely intertwined. How you want the economy to run dictates how you govern society, and vise versa.
A child growing up in such a society will likely be used to seeing a large amount of greed exuding from most people. They will, naturally, assume that greed is totally normal. Just look at the western world. Most children are told that they need to go to college/university in order to get a degree, in order to get a job, in order to amass money. There is an inherent desire for money that can be observed in most westerners. (And easterners too, chinks in particular, but I haven't observed SEA societies as much)
A good system of governence, one that I want, would create children who don't yearn for money, but for spiritual wealth.
Notice how I don't say or refer to my ideology from an economic perspective. This is because any ideology that is based on economic theory is inherently materialistic, as I said before. In ANY economic system, the primary purpose of a person is production. (I already said this but I don't think many actually read this)

View attachment 8842135

I don't think that I nor @Sneaky lurker are retarded.

It's pretty clear that by "fascism" OP means corporatism

No, I mean fascism because I do want to use violence.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

While it may not be immediately obvious, a capitalist society inherently does this.

You didn't address anything I actually said. The point was that you were treating an economic system as if it had a purpose it could assign to people, and your reply just repeats that claim instead of dealing with the distinction. Pointing to the fact that many people pursue money does not establish what you're arguing for. That is merely an observation about what some people choose to do, it does not show that the system itself has a purpose, and even less that it assigns one.

I'll also address the claims you made here

Because the concepts are very closely intertwined. How you want the economy to run dictates how you govern society, and vise versa.
A child growing up in such a society will likely be used to seeing a large amount of greed exuding from most people. They will, naturally, assume that greed is totally normal. Just look at the western world. Most children are told that they need to go to college/university in order to get a degree, in order to get a job, in order to amass money. There is an inherent desire for money that can be observed in most westerners. (And easterners too, chinks in particular, but I haven't observed SEA societies as much)
A good system of governence, one that I want, would create children who don't yearn for money, but for spiritual wealth.
Notice how I don't say or refer to my ideology from an economic perspective. This is because any ideology that is based on economic theory is inherently materialistic, as I said before. In ANY economic system, the primary purpose of a person is production. (I already said this but I don't think many actually read this)

So you're describing a process where children observe what others around them do and then adopt similar priorities. Even if that were broadly true, it still doesn't support your original claim. It just explains how people can come to value certain things, but it does not show that a system assigns those values to them. That same process would exist under any arrangement. Under non-capitalistic conditions, children would still observe others, and they would still pick up patterns from what they see. So this does not distinguish your claim about capitalism from the same developmental process under any other arrangement.
And you also keep equating "production" with "purpose", these are not the same thing. Production is something people do because they have to act on the world to sustain themselves. That says nothing about what they ultimately care about or what they think their life is for.
Then you say a good system of governance would produce people who don't value money but instead value "spiritual wealth", which introduces a different question you haven't answered. If different people end up valuing different things (which they do) what happens then? What determines which values are the ones that are supposed to be "produced"? And once that determination is made, how does it actually play out in practice? If someone continues to prioritize money over what you call spiritual wealth, what follows from that? Are they left alone, or is someone dispatched to correct them in some way?
Because if it's the latter, then some people are deciding which values may be acted on and then restricting or overriding the actions of others who don't conform. At that point, the issue is no longer merely what people value, but who gets to decide which values may be acted on, and who gets to stop others when they choose differently.
And that step you keep skipping in your argument is the big elephant in the room. You're moving from "this is the kind of person I want society to produce" straight to the outcome, without accounting for how that outcome is maintained when people don't line up with it.

 

[Starefag]

A good system of governence, one that I want, would create children who don't yearn for money, but for spiritual wealth.

That doesn't *mean* anything.

Notice how I don't say or refer to my ideology from an economic perspective. This is because any ideology that is based on economic theory is inherently materialistic, as I said before. In ANY economic system, the primary purpose of a person is production. (I already said this but I don't think many actually read this)

Capitalism is *not a system of governance*. You do not elect leaders in capitalism. It's just an addition onto another system. You can have capitalistic democracy or facism. You're fundementally misunderstanding this.
When I say "capitalism is not a system of governance" I mean, literally. That it only talks about goods and services within a government that already exists. Once you begin talking about leaders, representation, and social policy, you move into governance.

Just look at the western world. Most children are told that they need to go to college/university in order to get a degree, in order to get a job, in order to amass money. There is an inherent desire for money that can be observed in most westerners.

Most children are taught that greed is actually bad. And you're taught to give to those around you once you have enough. You learn about "sharing is caring" in fucking kindergarten for a reason. In order to have a first world society, you know when to stop taking for yourself. What backwater do you live in?

No, I mean fascism because I do want to use violence.

Ah, third world. Got it.

 

[Steel Billet]

That doesn't *mean* anything.

If you're just going to dismiss my points like this I'm not going to respond.

Capitalism is *not a system of governance*. You do not elect leaders in capitalism. It's just an addition onto another system. You can have capitalistic democracy or facism. You're fundementally misunderstanding this.
When I say "capitalism is not a system of governance" I mean, literally. That it only talks about goods and services within a government that already exists. Once you begin talking about leaders, representation, and social policy, you move into governance.

It's like you didn't even read what I said. I clearly stated that any ideology, i.e. system of governance that is based on economics is inherently materialistic, NOT that capitalism is a system of governance.

Most children are taught that greed is actually bad. And you're taught to give to those around you once you have enough. You learn about "sharing is caring" in fucking kindergarten for a reason. In order to have a first world society, you know when to stop taking for yourself. What backwater do you live in?

Just becaus they are taught that does not mean they retain it. Children who are more attentive to the world will notice that the people who act with immense greed seem to "get ahead" in life and are likely to mimic this behavior. Those who aren't will likely fall victim to the former.

Ah, third world. Got it.

It's not third world to exercise righteous violence against those who do evil.

So you're describing a process where children observe what others around them do and then adopt similar priorities. Even if that were broadly true, it still doesn't support your original claim. It just explains how people can come to value certain things, but it does not show that a system assigns those values to them. That same process would exist under any arrangement. Under non-capitalistic conditions, children would still observe others, and they would still pick up patterns from what they see. So this does not distinguish your claim about capitalism from the same developmental process under any other arrangement.

I should not have said "capitalist" because I am speaking more broadly at economic ideologies.

And you also keep equating "production" with "purpose", these are not the same thing.

All economic theory presupposes that the primary purpose of man is production and consumption of material goods. You would not create an economic system if you know that production and consumption is not the primary purpose of man.

If different people end up valuing different things (which they do) what happens then?

A society is formed by people who share similar views. The society is distinct from the country ("the country" in this instance referring to physical land and borders and not national identity), and while a person may be in "the country", they may not be part of society. So, if a person does not adhere to the common beliefs of the society they become an outcast. For example, say you live in a small village of 600 people, and in this village lives a sniveling little jew who tries to give out predatory loans to people. Your village society believes that usury is evil. The society of the village will, at best, not interact with the jew, and, at worst, completely expel him from the village.

What determines which values are the ones that are supposed to be "produced"?

The Faith.

If someone continues to prioritize money over what you call spiritual wealth, what follows from that? Are they left alone, or is someone dispatched to correct them in some way?

Following from the previous point, they will obviously be farther away from the society. If they prioritize worldly wealth, they will suffer the consequences of their actions by their own hand. If in their pursuit they don't actively or passively harm the society, they will just receive the fruits of their work. If they cause harm to others in the society, they would either be exiled, at best, or executed, at worst. The latter would be reserved for those who cause great, tremendeous harm, e.g. people who run insurance companies, bankers, people who run companies which cause harm to the nation.

 

[Tablet County]

What?

As in sophistry.

t's not third world to exercise righteous violence against those who do evil.

Nigger mindset.
Everything you have said is midwitted feel-good nonsense that wears the guise of high minded nobility. You might as well be talking about the benefits of pyramid power.

Mussolini couldn't even get the fucking trains to run on time. And that was his whole hook for fascism!

But that wasn't real fascism. Real fascism has never been tried.

 

[Starefag]

It's like you didn't even read what I said. I clearly stated that any ideology, i.e. system of governance that is based on economics is inherently materialistic, NOT that capitalism is a system of governance.

Read the words.
Capitalism. Doesn't govern. Governance and rulership are not covered under it's purview. Of course it's materialistic, it's only domain is material. You don't run a country based off capitalist principles, you use capitalism *within* the country. How do you vote, or elect leaders under capitalism? A board of directors? That's Oligarchy. A President/CEO? That's a dictatorship/representative dictatorship. Shareholders? Wealth based democracy.
It's not a system you govern with. It's a system you govern on top of.

Children who are more attentive to the world will notice that the people who act with immense greed seem to "get ahead" in life and are likely to mimic this behavior.

Do you have proof of this or are you just gesturing vaguely at doomerism? Humans as a social species tend to look down upon antisocial behavior. Which lying and greed fall under.

If you're just going to dismiss my points like this I'm not going to respond.

So define it. How do you mean 'wealthy in spirit'. What if the child decides that wealthy in spirit means having the most money to provide for those around them? What if they don't want to participate in your culture and conculde that in order to be 'spiritually rich' they leave it entirely? You know children do this thing in their teens and 20's where they rebel against the systems of power, and even countries like China have student rebellions, yeah? Is it righteous to shoot young people who reject your ideas?

It's not third world to exercise righteous violence against those who do evil.

It is. Violence is a last resort. And killing is a last *last* resort.
I know death penalty is hecking based. But there's always a chance that the dude you're putting in a firing squad is innocent. How high is that margin that you would consider it acceptable? How do you convince others that it is?

How do you have an educated population capable of manning a first world country that also accepts these things? Because in order to have that standard of living, you need to educate people. And a part of education is critical thinking and questioning of systems. Systems like
You know, facism.