Zoltanous
Discord ID: 561667606558277653
403 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 3/5
| Next
<:lmao:588490785029226548>
Think again
All jews are part of the problem
Otto weininger realize this that's why he killed himself
Well I just Justified it's the complete antithesis to Western civilization
Happy Yule
Sorelian France mod
https://youtu.be/g53v8DOSkLI new vid
Hot
He posted anime
I got invited on this podcast if anybodyโs interested https://youtu.be/QuKbpZR-qJM
@OrthoGoat gang
He was only anti-Jewish as far as the cosmopolitan laws were meant to be established meaning only those who supported various forms of anti-Soviet ideas. Jews were also only persecuted from a religious basis not racial. I would say the failure is the lack of racial persecution.
@Deleted User chad gang
Not surprised because the Chinese state isnโt socialist but corporatist
Reza Hasmath - The Chinese Corporatist State: Adaption, Survival and Resistance
Aldo Musacchio - Reinventing State Capitalism
Joshua Kurlantzick - State Capitalism: How the Return of Statism is Transforming the World
Ezra Vogel - Deng Xiaoping and The Transformation of China
Elizabeth Economy - The Third Revolution: Xi Jinping and the New Chinese State
Best books on it
I was on this stream
https://youtu.be/QuKbpZR-qJM
Anybody who calls himself a socialist in the United States is most likely what Sorel called parliamentary socialist
Ie a libtard soc dem or anarchist sperg
I have more respect for state socialist however their ideology is a complete paradox. They take the position of Marx which is based on individualistic ontology like liberalism because it argues the individual is pre-existing state and the point of the theory is to destroy the state internationally because it holds โcapitalist relationsโ. Obviously putting communes or worker councils with state oversight means the state bureaucrats are going to eventually run the economic sector and then you end up with something like modern China a corporate technocratic system, which is insanely superior to liberal free markets.
The fundamental problem with socialism in its current form is liberal ontology. If you get rid of liberal ontology and materialism you will end up with something more analogous to mercantilism or Guilds.
@Ater Votum yup itโs China just managed better
Possession is the act of possessing. Property is the act of ownership as recognized by law.
Law is administered and is a function of a judiciary and legal system maintained by a political organisation. Custom is collectively acknowledged conduct in accordance with authority (implicitly or explicitly.)
But why would these concepts be conflated so much by all modern political theory from the 1600s to the present? Again, Hodgson notes the connection between such opposites as Marx and Mises on page 105 and page 106:
โConsider the Austrian school economist Ludwig Von Mises. He argued that legal concepts could be largely relegated from economics and sociologyโฆ
Hence for Von Mises, ownership was natural and ahistorical rather than legal or institutional. A physical rather than a social relationship, it was deemed independent of law or any other social institution. Von Mises downgraded the institutions required for the protection and enforcement of the capacity to have and neglected the social aspects of ownership and consumption, which may signal identity, power, or status. Contrary to Mises, the law does not simply add a normative justification for having something: it also reinforces the de facto ability to use and hold onto the asset.
The resemblance to Marxโs dismissal of law is uncanny: both Marx and Von Mises concentrated on raw physical power over objects rather than legal rights. Marxโs numerous discussions of โpropertyโ had little to say about legal rights, and he conflated property with possession. Hence Marx (1975,351) in 1844 addressed โ private propertyโ and argued that โan object is only ours when we have it-โฆwhen we directly possess, eat, drink, wear, inhabit it, etc.,-in short, when we use it.โ With both Marx and Von Mises, effective power over something is conflated with a de facto right. Legal and moral aspects of property are overshadowed.โ
Of course they both would. They are both trying to define away the state in the issue of property. This is the key issue. All modern theory is fundamentally anarchist, it just varies in how delusional it is on this point.If all property is really possession, then we have to try to explain how and why people stay together โ Hobbes. At which point the state is really a kind of alien entity which is called in as an umpire, or a stationary bandit that enforces these peer to peer agreements between property holders/ possession holders. When the likes of Adam Smith then talk about governance and sovereignty whilst holding the labor theory of value, he makes no sense. No one does.
Just one of the small things Iโm willing to explain that shows that Marxism is literally just another formation of liberal autism
The only thing the Neo liberal revolution did was help economic growth other than that itโs been fundamentally a disaster humanity
@Dark Futon420 hot
Stuff
Because everybody with an anime profile picture is a tranny
Mutualist is just a market socialist
Market socialism also has worker cooperatives running all economic sectors
natural resources ie Heavy industry, healthcare, finances meaning banks, Public utilities, any type of media, should be state owned. Unions must be nationalized and reorganized into state owned national corporations ie (guilds) do to them perpetuating marxist class war. The corporate state is controlled by politically-unaffiliated representatives of employers, workers and state officials. While the means of production are still in private hands, the capitalist mode of production is abolished, with this Corporatist model replacing it. The Corporatist model seeks a comprise of both worker and employer, who are given equal voting power on any issue passing through said corporations. These corporations must be organized to fit occupations and roles such as by example, a corporation would be created for teaching; doctors; welders;
manufacturing fields; and so on โ with syndical regional administrative groups helping the operating corporation. Should either the worker, or the employer, create some mechanism or policy which they feel has significant value, then a facile system shall allow them to submit this idea for scrutiny by the corporate council via the councilโs local representative. This council must be comprised of workers within the corporate field, who are democratically elected to the council by the corporations membership. Once the idea has been approved by the council, it will then be put to a vote by the membership of the corporation; upon approval, and provided it poses no conflict to the national interest, it must be introduced into state policy. This mechanism, as well as allowing the regulation of certain fields to be determined by experienced senior workers and employers within that field. National corporations must be in state ownership to ensure that no material factor or any bias from private interest subverts the structure. There shall be one corporation per occupational field nationally, that will also have its own labor court to handle disputes. If decisions cannot be negotiated with outcome the state will simply intervene for a decision. The head of government shall be organized with a โSovereignโ
acting as the national leader, who shall be chosen by a Grand Council, which will be made up of Party leadership, Military high command, and representatives from the Corporations.
This also means setting prices and wages with profit sharing even progressive taxation
@ChaosNatural if they canโt read and have a short attention span theyโre a retard. For nationalization to work it needs a complex system that only corporatism provides.
Dollfuss death was funny.
Ok โcatholicโ
If you adhere to modern moralism in the way Nietzsche defined it youโre a moral catholic.
Ie a humanist
You probably do
Bad
Like a year ago I liked christians and wanted European collaboration. Bout now I basically hate them including the ethnicity because I canโt stand their political position. Mostly America, UK, Eastern Europe ( Ukraine is OK) , Germany and Austria.
Yea the USA must be destroyed to get rid of liberalism
No
Yea I donโt like the USA
Iโd rather see China take over
The economics are superior, they follow the concept of the political a Schmitt wrote about it, red colonialism, nationalism and theyโre objectively no longer Marxist if you look into them long enough.
Fuck Mao
He was incoherent modern China is a power house
They rely on an export based economy of course itโs reliant on the biggest consumer thatโs why theyโve been supplementing trading partners with authoritarian regimes to create a Mercantile empire self sufficiently
They have enough trading partners to where they could do opposition against America
Best books
Reza Hasmath - The Chinese Corporatist State: Adaption, Survival and Resistance
Aldo Musacchio - Reinventing State Capitalism
Joshua Kurlantzick - State Capitalism: How the Return of Statism is Transforming the World
Ezra Vogel - Deng Xiaoping and The Transformation of China
Elizabeth Economy - The Third Revolution: Xi Jinping and the New Chinese State
Lee Kuan Yew - From Third World to First: The Singapore Story - 1965-2000
Chua Beng Huat - Liberalism Disavowed: Communitarianism and State Capitalism in Singapore
The only problem with its is economy shadow banking but the bubble isnโt real because the government owns the dept from it so itโs actually fake Inflation thank currency manipulation
Iโm mostly Anglo but live in the States Iโd rather move to some place in Europe once Iโm done with the military
I hate Anglos too
Should have bombed them harder in WW2
The Angloโs have always traditionally been into this retarded liberal capitalism. The reason why I adhere to state capitalism is because I follow doctrines like generative anthropology, which is a collectivist argument for group evolutionary strategy in the creation of the state to technology.
I would also say adhere to power analysis because I question modern metanarratives and take poststructuralist positions
I donโt see Marxism or liberalism answering these questions. Instead of existing paradox because they try to do away the state
I hang with the Neo Absolutist guys
It follows reactionary concepts it just uses new philosophical arguments for it. However itโs still uses people like Evola to Giovanni Gentile to justify it too many others. I also donโt get why you would say itโs leftist, you could argue in a real sense actual absolutism took similar stances if you read counter enlightenment philosophy like Joseph de Maistre
Like Joel and Imperius the two big guys who help make all its source material have called it Fascism.
It comes to that position because of generative anthropology and studies on the Centralization of power
Thereโs a reason why your worker councils and communes never have any say the state takes over
OK ontological anarchist
What is the fundamental goal, a classless, moneyless, stateless society after you argument everything with socialism
Unfortunately for you you created deformed worker state that become a state capitalism
State capitalism is the end goal
These are not Assumptions thatโs what actually happened
China, Russia, Juche are not Marxist. Vietnam is free market wew. Cuba Participates in the global economy now with minor privatization
The only good interpretation of Marxist Leninism was 1930s national Bolshevism
Stalin was right
They did have an interpretation of Marx itโs called Read theyโre fucking manifesto
They had worker councils
You fucking idiot
The only interpretation of national Bolshevism that does not have worker councils is the social Democrat version used in modern Russia
403 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 3/5
| Next