Message from @Bird Wizard
Discord ID: 522055316590952467
heh, no system is perfect, this much is true. but socialism beyond a shadow of a doubt serves a nation the best. its somewhat remarkable to me that so many nationalists are right-wingers, when left-nationalism would serve the nation they *claim* to love so much better
internationalism is obviously superior, but this has no bearing on the mistake that many nationalists do
tbh international capitalism can go fuck itself
China along with it as well
they are probably the best example of what ruthless capitalism can be like
ironically a communist nation
oh China is not communist in the slightest, and I literally wish them to crash and burn to ashes. I harbour nothing but contempt for that nation
and yes, agreed, international capitalism can indeed go fuck itself
the problem with capitalism, of course, is that it *must become international* because it is inherent to the laws governing the growth and evolution of capitalism that it must expand
of course, nation is a limited playground,
so eventually capitalism - to avoid collapse - must expand beyond the nation
and this is why capitalism never stays national
why it always goes global
the plan is to stop it before it does, and tell them NO, nooo... NO respect the worker
in the international trade, the nation sets the terms
but is this possible? i think that it will be very difficult to stop capitalism from expanding because to stop it from expanding means to stifle its growth rate. if you stifle the growth of capitalism - and capitalism is a system *fundamentally predicated upon ad infinitum growth* - the system comes apart
not capitalists
limit the growth
seems like a brainlet solution
I mean tbh I'd see Juche work better for nationalists than capitalism but idk
you mean expand the purview of the nation, the state, so that capitalism would have more domestic living space? that would imply war, if you mean expansion in the state sense
any of the two is alright
I believe that the alt-right has a "marketist" perspective
In that rabid consumerism is bad and community is important
But believe market forces are the best way to determine production
And that the individual has a right to make money
markets are actually consistent with socialism, there's a whole school of thought on this - market socialism. but capitalism isn't. and yes, capitalism and markets aren't the same thing
Titoist Yugoslavia is the prime example of worker-coop based MarSoc - no capitalism there, workers run the economy, the economy is democratic and social ownership rules the land. Not a single privately owned business - all horizontal, democratic worker-coops.
Yet, markets still existed
I thought you were saying markets aren't consistent with capitalism
markets are consistent with socialism and capitalism, ultimately. you can have markets in both a framework of social ownership (say, a market economy founded solely on worker-coops and their industrial federations under the purview of the socialist republic) *or* in the context of private ownership of the means of production, that is private companies under the purview of the state
for any nationalist worth their salt, if you had to choose one society with markets in them, the MarSoc is obviously better for the interests and purposes of the nation than the capitalist alternative
Yes I know
I studied Yugoslavia extensively when I was a commie scumfuck
then you know of the awe of Yugomarxist socialism and the purity of their praxis! 😁 time to come back to it m8, we'll take you back promise 🤞
tbh Tito made lots of mistakes along the way, wtf was that guy doing with IMF
used to be a Titoist myself some time ago. for a couple of years. but ultimately I became convinced of the Soviet position, the Khrushchevite one to be exact
yugo economy was unsustainable, it was getting into debt to be lifted out of debt. the jew interest rate was never going to allow something like that to exist
and tito was a butcher but that's besides the point.
it was, ultimately, unsustainable for the ambition that it had. It should've taken a more gradual plan to develop the economy, and I'd say that there was too little direct state planning involved. I appreciate the entirely worker-centric economy that they had, in some sense a *very pure form of socialism* rarely seen in other examples (and I still love SFRY to death to be honest, glory to Tito) but the way they went about it - the tactics - were very off and ultimately doomed the country to the grim fate it experienced (although the Serbian powergrab ops towards the end of 1980s were a major factor as well)