Personal vs private property is important distinction.

Then what is the point of destroying personal interest and private property when you can smash then with a very strong government?

Because the very strong government must be socialist or else the hydra will just grow another head.

How can you be sure of that?

Why must it be socialist and nothing else?

To kill any chance of capitalism starting again. Do not leave it to hope.

Cutting the weed over and over vs. just pulling out the root

And is socialism the only way of preventing it from starting again?

Why can't national interest combine with this along with the interest of the people in order to prevent it?

It can. 'Socialism in One Country'. it is called. It creates a national beachhead from which to launch revolution into all other countries of the world.

But then there is also national socialism, which promotes right wing beliefs along with destroying juden controlled capitalism.

If it is socialist, why does it allow private property?

Because it exists mostly to serve national interests.

That's the jew lie right there.

How so?

We just discussed why private property is the root of creating financial interests that are in contradiction with the state.

Which I did not agree with, but continue.

What? How else can capitalism exist without private property? It is the primary prerequisite.

It can't... for the most part, which is why I want not a capitalistic economy, but a free market that is not under control by the juden who manipulate it.

It's all the same thing. Free market requires private property. It is fundamentally contradictory to public interests. We're finished here.

If you say so.....

?serverinfo

If private property did not create financial interests at odds with the state, then why would the state have to intervene ever? There is a clear contradiction here that is not resolved. Why? Because Fascism is the guard dog of the bourgeoisie and you are accepting its ideology.

Without Hitler there would be no Israel. You are not seeing this?

socialism could only ever work in an extremely small nation anyways, so this argument is kind of pointless

debate*

Was USSR a small nation?

it failed

remember

also, thats communism

@Panaffles you don't know what perestroika is

>Stalin
>defeats 80% of Wehrmacht
>failed
OK boss.

it ended pretty quickly ol

@Firefly

I very much doubt that israel would still not exist without hitler, but anyways, it seems that humans will always clash with the state no matter what, the only way it would not is if the state was a magic utopia that made all happy under it's ideology, sadly no matter how many times you read the communist manifesto it will never turn out that way.

@Deleted User im talking about a stable nation where the majority of people arent starving lol

sure it might have been good for a few, but for the entire population it wasnt very good at al

all*

@Panaffles
>starving nation
>defeats 80% of Wehrmacht
Are Slavs superhuman?